Russia - threadbanned users in OP

He's not going to drop or fire nuclear weapons that close to his own border ,

Putin isn't firing nuclear weapons full stop

That would be ace.

It would be love.

There's a few things here to discuss:

1. Why do you think 'Abramovich would be trusted in the West'? He's a Putin-approved murderous kleptomaniac after all. Let's not forget he was the person who recommended Putin as President to Yeltsin! So I don't buy that. He's actually the opposite - completely untrustworthy. This is the equivalent of saying Daniel Kinahan would be a viable Taoiseach because he has a big profile.
2. The whole point of constructing a power vertical, as Putin as done, is that anyone who isn't in it is by default a nobody with no power of any kind. As you say, that is indeed depressing but it's also the reality.

who would be more acceptable than Abramovich to the west as leader of Russia? Personally I think he would stand out as the best option as someone who would be acceptable to the west. Calling him murderous is a bit of a stretch. He’s a kleptocrat…so what.

your second point is true but isn’t really a reason that would stop Abramovich. It’s more a reason why Putin will never be removed which I also accept is a possibility.

LOL no one in that position will ever be trusted in the West, so maybe let's look for someone that can be bought by the West.

no more McDonalds in Russia or Renaults, extrapolate that out and Russia will soon have queues around each corner for food and all people who can afford it driving only ladas

Ukraine published documents reportedly from Russia's 1st Tank Army showing its losses through March 15. It lists: 61 KIA, 209 WIA, 44 MIA, and 96 taken POW. Incredibly, the 2nd Motorized Rifle Division's 1st Tank Regiment allegedly lost 45 T-72B3M tanks.

The 1st Tank Regiment reportedly had 93 tanks, so this would mean it lost almost half of them in the first three weeks of the war.

It doesn't matter 'who the West finds acceptable'. And Abramovich is as scummy s they come. You didn't get to make that amount of money in those times in Russia by observing scrupulous business ethics.

It's not like the West finds Viktor Orban acceptable. Or PiS in Poland. Or Boris for that matter.

The West won't get a say in who the next leader is, that's a fundamental flaw in your thinking.

Ukrainian artillerymen use a special situational awareness system. Arta's GIS, as this tool is called, identifies enemy targets and indicates nearby weapons from which to attack them.

Can the sharing of the Black Sea be part of the negotiations. After all why would one nation not try to help out another nation to progress for lots people and visa versa when the occasion arises !!!!! . Is it not the neighbourly thing to do ?

From today's Politico Paybook.

On Sunday, JENS STOLTENBERG, NATO’s secretary general, summed up the implications of these developments: “Ukraine can win this war.”

And that is exactly the problem according to a growing number of western officials and analysts who fear the fallout from what French President EMMANUEL MACRON called the “humiliation” of Russia.

Macron is not alone. Matthew Karnitschnig, reports this morning:

“After weeks spent fretting over what would happen if Russia crushed Ukraine, Western European leaders are now worried about what might happen if Ukraine actually wins. … One big concern is that a Ukrainian win could destabilize Russia, making it even more unpredictable and putting a normalization of energy links further out of reach. That’s why some western European capitals quietly favor a ‘face-saving’ resolution to the conflict, even if it costs Ukraine some territory.”

The leaders of France, Germany and Italy are all stressing a ceasefire and peace deal at precisely the moment when Ukraine has reversed the tide.

Karnitschnig notes that their fears of victory put them out of step with the Biden administration, which in recent weeks has talked about how Ukraine, in the words of Defense Secretary LLOYD AUSTIN, “can win.”

In an important column over the weekend, NYT’s Ross Douthat noted that the possibility of Ukrainian advances would make nuclear escalation “much more likely”:

“We know that Russian military doctrine envisions using tactical nuclear weapons defensively, to turn the tide in a losing war. We should assume that Putin and his circle regard total defeat in Ukraine as a regime-threatening scenario. Combine those realities with a world where the Russians are suddenly being routed, their territorial gains evaporating, and you have the most nuclear-shadowed military situation since our naval blockade of Cuba in 1962.”

Doubt it ,as seen in the past and present Russia can't and won't be trusted ,the only real reason they took Crimea in the first place was they knew the Ukrainians would tell them to vacate the port so they could use it themselves

. My brother went on holiday to Uzbekistan week before last, he booked it months before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Hopefully he'll be back next weekend safe.

I mean it's hardly surprising people want an end to hostilities. The longer hostilities continue the more expensive it is for everyone involved; including Ukraine. And that's ignoring the various paths Russia might pursue in terms of further escalation.

Not only that but the same way Ukraine is prioritising its own people and future; other governments and leaders must also do the same w.r.t. their own peoples and collective futures.

Also I'm pretty sure when people are saying Ukraine "can win" they're not necessarily saying "Ukraine will likely militarily evict all Russian forces from all Ukrainian territory"; they're saying that Ukraine is likely to be able to force a resolution to the conflict on more beneficial terms than they have been offered or could reasonably expect from Russia at the current time.