Zelenskyy: No world leader has the right to negotiate with Putin on behalf of Ukraine
(www.pravda.com.ua)
from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 18 Dec 13:12
https://lemmy.world/post/23275944
from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 18 Dec 13:12
https://lemmy.world/post/23275944
Summary
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asserted that no world leader has the right to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin on behalf of Ukraine.
Speaking to Le Parisien readers, Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine alone determines its future and any dialogue with Russia must follow a peace plan based on strength and international support.
He warned against negotiating without clear guarantees of security, highlighting the risks of Putin resuming aggression after a ceasefire.
Zelenskyy called for a strategy ensuring Ukraine’s long-term stability and security, beyond NATO or EU membership timelines.
#world
threaded - newest
It’s fucking ridiculous he has to say it out loud
Tbh a lot of people in the states are under the impression that we CAN do precisely that, because we absolutely have done in the past. But this is also kind of a whole different ballgame, in a ton of pretty crucial ways.
Thus the ridiculous nature of the statement
No world leader = hey, you orange turd, you do NOT speak on our behalf.
But stated politically.
this is why our teachers taught us the difference between can and may (one implies ability, the other permission) because all of south america is looking at this like “fucking right dude”
As an American, I have always found our conduct in South America in particular to be utterly reprehensible.
Central too. Dole & United Fruit, Panama Canal, School of the Americas, just to mention a few lasting atrocities
Not only that, but we’re giving fucking BILLIONS of money to Ukraine, we SHOULD have a say so in what happens…
No we’re literally not. We’re giving them our stocks of older equipment that has been in warehouses. That equipment is assigned a dollar value and then it’s argued over as if were stacks of cash.
Yes we’re giving them money too, but when a headline says Biden authorizes $20 billion in additional aid to Ukraine, the vast majority of it is our old stuff.
you are just funneling BILLIONS into your Military Industrial Complex, which is good for the shareholder value of the usual suspects, while dropping off your used stuff all over Europe. The US are mainly helping themselves. It just happens to also help Ukraine.
It is, but that’s what Trump did with Afghanistan.
Yet, he expects the US to just keep cutting those checks, right?
You probably even think it’s one of those overisized checks that are often shown in your TV shows, don’t you.
Of course no one can negotiate on behalf of Ukraine. Ukraine is holding on thanks to the support of several parties, and those parties do have the right to continue or end that support depending on the conditions they see. I hope this never happens, but If the US says they’re okay with letting Russia keep the territory its gained as long as hostilities end, then they are within their rights to withhold further arms aid on those conditions. Is that the US negotiating as if they are themselves Ukraine? No. Zelensky understands that he is existentially dependent on others. He’s just reminding them not to abuse that.
In principle I agree, but he doesn’t really have a choice. Other world leaders are providing the funds to continue the war in the first place. If Zelensky does something they don’t like, they can just stop the funding and end the war on Russian terms.
You need to educate yourself on the geographical foothold that Ukraine is. It is a very important part of land with mobilisation consequences. Without it, at least for now, it leaves very drastic measures as the only option.
it also feeds a billion people
If Ukrainians want to they can make this another Afghanistan, or even worse given their much better infrastructure and manufacturing capacity. Their will to continue fighting is the only variable.
Huh? This conflict basically already is the Afghanistan war.
Which one?
The one we’re talking about.
The taliban had the support of Pakistan, as well as Iran and Russia - that’s the only way that kind of war could last for 20 years. That’s essentially where we are now with western backing, but if the west pulls support… Ukraine can last only so long on will-power alone. The same could be said for Russia, but as far as I can tell there isn’t an active risk of their allies pulling support yet.
edit: far be it for me to point out that’s why there’s been so much circling of wagons to keep the US involved and so much panic about trump pulling us out
I think you’re overstating how much help the Afghans got from PK/US the first time PK/RU/IR the second time, but in any case Ukraine is far better able to sustain itself given their much more developed industry and infrastructure, and the fact that the bulk of the country is unoccupied. It wouldn’t be a cakewalk by any means, but Ukraine wouldn’t cease to exist.
I don’t really think I am, but fair enough.
Ukraine might have more advanced infrastructure than Afghanistan, but having that infrastructure within reach of Russian missiles and airstrikes means that they’d have to defend it or else lose the means to sustain a continued resistance. Again, I don’t think people appreciate just how much trouble Ukraine would be in if the west pulled support before a ceasefire deal is struck - Ukrainian forces aren’t guerilla fighters. If Russia didn’t already have the upper hand now, they certainly would once Ukraine was left to maintain their resistance alone - and then it would really only be a question of how long Russian citizens will put up with their wartime economy (and how many soldiers NK is willing to lose).
There’s absolutely no way Russia can take and hold all of Ukraine – it would be a real challenge to keep the provinces they’ve already carved off if Ukrainians keep pressing the issue. I’m certainly not advocating for the end of Western support – au contraire – but it’s really, really hard to occupy and pacify a country, especially one the size of Ukraine with a population of nearly 40 million. The USSR had enormous resources to deploy in its imperial expansion and was mostly unopposed, whereas today’s Russia doesn’t benefit from either point and it’s harder to be a rogue state in today’s world.
I’m not suggesting they would or would want to take all of Ukraine, just that Ukraine isn’t likely to gain any ground or stop further Russian advance without outside aid.
Oh, in that case I agree, although if UA wanted to make things as difficult for Russia as possible, they could do so indefinitely in such a way that those easternmost provinces are in a perpetual state of low-level war, let alone the massive demographic and economic damage that Russia will have to deal with and will likely never recover from.
If Ukraine loses we will have war with Russia (now able to use their resources and people) and we will have to send our soldiers.
Military analyst Anders Puck Nielsen, who was spot on with predictions when covering this war says that is we allow cease fire without security guarantees for Ukraine this ultimately will be victory for Russia.
youtu.be/MhpoNL1gZbw
It looks like the vast majority of people in the West don’t really understand what this war is about.
Not in 2014 and not now. I remember how no one understood in my circles what it meant when they booted out putins puppet.
I don’t see how any of this takes away from what I said. Ukraine can’t continue the war themselves, so they have no choice but to do what their benefactors wish.
So is Russia. Russia was unable to help Armenia, what we see in Syria, there are some signs of things breaking up in Libia, Georgia, we will see how Belarusian election will go in January, last time Putin needed to send his military to stop the protests.
The war economy cannot work forever and 2024 was estimated to be its peak for Russia.
The support the West is providing also is negotiable (compared to GDP) and if Russia will win in Ukraine we will have to spend 7 times more while being in actual war according to analysts.
I still don’t see how any of this takes away from my point. Are you just saying that other countries have a vested interest in the continued existence of Ukraine as we know it? Because I know that, that’s why they started funding the war in the first place.
Let’s say that when Trump takes office he negotiates new terms with Putin. Zelensky will agree to those terms because he knows things will only be worse for his country if he continues fighting without US support.
Are you just trying to say that the us or other countries would never threaten to pull support because it would be foolish? If so, then you don’t know how common fools are. What is it you think Trump means when he says he will end the war immediately after taking power?
Not sure why he’s downvoted. None of us want it, but he’s right, if Trump is as stupid as we think and actually pulls Ukraine funding, they may have no choice but to negotiate. That would be a bad outcome, but a likely outcome if the US, UK or EU dropped support.
You'd think this would be a fairly cut and dry issue - the countries helping Ukraine wouldn't like it either if another country started negotiating terms on their behalf (especially not with a monster like Putin).
Ukraine and its people should be the ones to decide their own fate.
I swear people who think otherwise must've read David vs. Goliath and sided with the Goliath.
Bold of you to assume that they can read, or that they have read the Bible.
In my experience not even “devout Christians” do that last one.
It has different messages if you hold it upside down.
easiest way to become an atheist is to read scripture.
100%. Reading the Bible cover to cover + learning about the history of how Judaism was born out of the polytheistic Yahwism and the resulting merge between Yahweh and the chief Canaanite god El was the way I just kept pulling the thread until it all came apart. The inconsistencies between an omnibenevolent god (El) and violent massacring war god (Yahweh) make a lot more sense once you know they used to be two separate gods.
Alright, that didn’t work. What’s next?
I dunno, if you believe in a global flood and the tower of babel I’m not sure I can help
Honestly I’m not qualified enough to make educated guesses what type of texts those are. As in, are they written in a form that insinuates to be literal stories. The teachings of those stories are pretty understandable, though.
Some say that the oldest stories are reverse prophecies. And we know how accurate prophecies are considered in general.
The Bible is not a science book, but one of relationship between God and man.
It’s interesting that that relationship changes, isn’t it? Like, early on God is the sort of deity to turn you into salt or flood the world if He’s displeased. And over time, He does that sort of spiteful intervention less and less. It’s hard not to see it as Him getting wiser and more compassionate. But… if He’s all powerful and all knowing to begin with, why does His approach to people change?
It’s not only interesting, it’s difficult to understand, and Old Testament contains a lot of stuff that makes you doubt. But if you look at it from a theological view, God’s judgement does not disappear anywhere in New Testament. It’s just diverted into one person: his own son, who he abandons to be crucified, even though he is innocent.
Christianity is really a horrifying religion. The core of it is disgusting and offensive.
But it doesn’t end there.
I can’t say I disagree. The tendency to outright dismiss christianity online is understandable, but a little frustrating. Even with that horrifying core, a lot of people find solace in it. For many, it’s the only semblence of community that’s lasted into the 21st century.
On another level, it’s just plain interesting the sorts of stories people felt needed to be preserved. It speaks to how they lived and what they valued. A lot has changed, and a lot hasn’t. That kind of narrative window into the past is valuable, and I’m glad I grew up with it, even if I don’t consider myself Christian anymore.
What about the country sending the most aid to Ukraine, without which Ukraine could not continue the war, being the one at the negotiating table?
No, that country can fuck off back across the ocean, thanks.
And take their aid along with them?
What if this means Ukraine is no longer able to defend itself?
Then they can fuck off across the ocean with their aid. Ukraine isn’t the US’s puppet.
Alright well, I guess it can be Russia’s puppet then.
Uh huh, it would be less a russian puppet than the US negotiating another countries’ fate.
to paraphrase an old Polish quote, (on dealing with Russians) “The Rubble is preferable to Russian Dominion”
Maybe it’s just me, but life in Ukraine didn’t look all that different from life in Russia before the invasion.
Both nations are far behind the civilized world when it comes to social issues. Corruption was cited as a major reason for denying Ukraine entrance into NATO.
the difference beforehand was that prior to the shooting (big shooting at least). One was a flawed democracy that was trying to improve, and trying to do to itself what Poland did to itself after 20-30 years in NATO and EU.
the other was an authoritarian mob state. going from one to the other, was evidently worth fighting to the death over, I am inclined to agree.
You mean apart from all the dead Ukrainians and the ethnic cleansing and the kidnapped children and such?
I swear, everytime you reply to me it’s in bad faith.
You need to brush up on your reading comprehension and take a class on persuasive writing.
Yeah, I read what you wrote. Unless you meant before the invasion of Crimea, and I don’t think you did, I stand by what I said.
Ukraine can 100% continue fighting their invaders without the US. Also, Europe supplies more aid to Ukraine than the US.
euronews.com/…/how-much-has-the-eu-given-to-ukrai…
Then why is Ukraine constantly upset US isn’t giving enough aid?
You might not realize this, but you’re comparing a continent to a country. US is still “the country sending the most aid to Ukraine,” which I said in my previous comment.
Because the US could do a whole lot more?
Yeah, but according to the other commenter Ukraine “doesn’t need it” and he doesn’t want Ukraine to be reliant on the US.
So… they both do and don’t need aid from the US? Lol.
I see what you’re trying to say and I agree but this isn’t the right echo chamber to be talking like that.
It’s not that hard. They don’t need aid to continue to fight, but they do need aid to be able to win.
Would the US like it if another country tried to push it to the side and negotiate on its behalf on literally any issue, not even war-related?
Do you think the US would accept the outcome of such negotiations willingly?
I suspect it wouldn't, so expecting another country to do so is pure hypocrisy.
Hey Goliath was clearly in the right. David brought a gun to a fist fight, bastard never should have been allowed to walk free after that level of cheating.
Unfortunately their ability to decide their own fate is limited while they are reliant on resources from countries that are threatening to pull the plug.
Yet we still give Israel bombs 🫥
Israel gets all the munitions it wants to enact a genocide, but Ukraine has to fight for every bullet to fight for its own sovereignty against a modern day dictator.
The US government's priorities really are something.
Truth
The right? Maybe not. The ability though? Certainly. Specifically the US absolutely has the power to negotiate an end to the war with Putin.
They could negotiate Russia’s end to the war using their own resources (ie. Mostly the embargos) but anything Ukraine forfeits would have to be negotiated by them. The US can’t just cede another nation’s land.
We effectively can if we threaten to pull all support and harass Ukraine instead…
Not that I want that, or have any say in that as a US citizen…
There’s no threat needed. Zalenskyy already knows he’s losing US support after January.
The effect would be exactly that. Actually the US ending support for Ukraine would result in not just ceding current borders, but huge additional losses.
This is literally Zalenskyy saying we can’t negotiate for him while knowing that he’s losing US support in January.
He’s doing whatever he can, but ultimately him saying this doesn’t make it so-- no matter how much he (or you) wish it would. Ukraine has been losing ground even with US support and they will only lose more without it. To pretend otherwise is to live in a fantasy. In such a situation the US has at least as much control over how much Ukrainian territory ends up under Russian occupation, as does Ukraine.
You’re confusing losing land because you can’t hold it militarily with negotiating an end to the invasion by ceding land. He’s said that no one will negotiate for Ukraine but Ukraine and since the incoming US administration has already said they’ll be ending support we really don’t have any leverage to encourage them to accept any terms. We can’t threaten to remove support that we’ve already said we’re removing.
I’m saying that there isn’t much of a difference. I agree that Ukraine is fucked and that the time for negotiations is long gone. Why would Russia negotiate now when they expect a clear advantage on the horizon?
I think Zelensky is saying this to look tough and keep the support from Europe coming in at least.
Unfortunately the US definitely can since it gave a lot of military aid to Ukraine. It can force Ukraine to cede land
“Mom says it’s my turn with the Donbas.”
Unfortunately, Trump will do exactly that regardless.
probably already has an
instructionagreement to cease all supportProbably already has.
Given the Russian pushes since Trump won the election, I’m guessing the deal is “stop fighting (for a bit), but any land you’re currently on is yours to keep”.
This obviously will not apply to the bits of Russia currently under Ukrainian control.
Europe needs to up it’s munitions manufacture. Can’t rely on the US for that shit any more. They’ve gone mad.
YES, please stop relying on us, it’s become a very sore spot for a lot of people.
I mean a lot of US folks seem way more smug than actually upset about it. Bringing it up to derail the conversation whenever anyone mentions US imperialism or the one-sidedness of NATO policy, as if the US would ever accept, let alone desire a position as equal among equals.
Just IMO (and a lot of other peoples) military spending is completely out of control and a small fraction of it could pay for healthcare and education for everyone. But I agree the ruling class and associated MIC lobbyists aren’t going to let that happen any time soon, as nice as it would be.
Oh absolutely. Gotta keep the plebs desperate and divided, while billions upon billions disappear into the most toxic and destructive industry there is right alongside fossil fuel corporations.
They managed to keep military spending at an unprecedented level after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, in an amazing feat of governmental capture and exploitation by arms industry lobbyists. But it wasn’t enough, because it never is. Line must go up. The US has been seeking new reasons to funnel even more money their way ever since.
Yeah if you make society nice and easy to live in then people stop joining the military.
It could pay for those things but it won’t, even if they stopped funding the military. It would be kept by the billionaire class.
The problem is that the EU does this submissive bit because we also support the petrodollar. You’re buying the EU economy and markets with those weapons.
Imagine if we gave all of that back and aligned with China instead. It would instantly reduce the US to a regional power - fighting with runaway inflation - economically speaking. Not that I think that would be good for the EU either.
The status of the US as a superpower is founded on its alliances.
The US has a more powerful military than the next 9 countries of the top 10 combined. Based on war power expenditure. We shouldn’t neglect the soft power aspect, but the hard power will keep it a superpower barring collapse of society, which is totally possible.
And what do you pay that military with? Most of that expenditure is wages.
Having a huge and advanced military and getting your economy off a cliff can go one of two ways. Either Germany 1939 or Russia 1991.
There are very intelligent people at the department of defense. I often disagree with their decisions, but they know how the game is played. If the economy goes off a cliff, I guarantee you soldiers will still be paid.
Yep the Trump deal is currently no NATO and full handover of the two provinces plus anything Russia holds. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Maybe we can broker a deal where Russia gets to keep the invaded land, but Ukraine becomes a full NATO member.
That should fuck up putins imperialist plans to revive the ussr.
America can tell Russia Ukraine formally surrenders, and that the moon is made of cheese, it isnt going to stop anyone from fighting to protect themselves.
The fact that even western countries seem to think that there can be negotiations about the fate of Ukraine and its people, without the Ukrainian voice present, is laughable and directley supports Putin and the Russian Mafia’s fantasy-narrative.
While I do agree that this is all kind of bullshit and contributes to that issue of supporting Putin and the Russian mafia fantasy, the reality is that the entire Ukrainian war effort is propped up by the resources provided from western countries, which means that they do in fact the ability to continue or end the war pretty unilaterally. We can chest pound all we want, as can Zelenskyy, but he knows this. This war cannot continue without armaments from the US and Western Europe
Western europe has no choice now, they have to arm up and possibly prepare for war with Russia, or resign, and accept Russian Dominion.
The US will do as it wills, they’re going to backslide into fighting with themselves, and evidently with Canada and Mexico at this current rate. Europe will have to take the torch, if for no other reason than that they have no choice. Russia and NATO have been de-facto at war with each other for a while.
I’ve even said that WW3 started years ago but people generally dont agree because they only associate the term WW3, with nuclear exchanges.
theres’ no turning back from this state though. the last chance we had at an “offramp” was in september 6 to 21 of 2022. at that point, the russian army had suffered a major defeat and been pushed out of over half the territory they had conquered. That was Putin and Kremlin’s opportunity to back off before this spiraled totally beyond control, instead, that door was slammed shut forever on the 21st when Russia announced a mobilization.
Now, its not going to stop until either Ukraine signs over part of its territory in exchange for NATO protection, Or the fight goes on until a government collapses. (either way just means more war, east or west) No ceasefire outside of of that deal I mentioned, will actually last, or truthfully stop the hostilities. Russian treaties are just an alternate spelling of Toilet paper
I don’t disagree with any of this, all I’m saying is that Ukraine only has a war so long as its friends are giving them the means with which to wage war.
I completely agree the US would be foolish to stop helping them. We should be ramping it up. Russia is a rogue state, it should be treated like one, with the relatively modest investment we put into it we have seen Russia take crippling blows that will take them easily decades to recover from. This is an opportunity to contain a major world threat and it is not lost on me that Trump and co are determined to squander the opportunity.
Trump, Orban, LePen, Fico, they’re all comlicit in the gang of mafia stooges that are different flavors of the same Mobster Kleptocrat Authoritarian that Putin is the ringmaster of.
If America and NATO pull back support, Putin will just say “fuck it” and take all of Ukraine and then do whatever he wants. Putin wants every territory that used to be Russia.
even if Nato tucks its tails between its legs and runs away from a winnable confrontation, Russia isn’t taking the whole country, they don’t have the manpower to run an occupation on a territory the size of Texas, with one of the most heavily armed and battle hardened populations on earth.
Russia already signed away any hope of an occupation that didn’t fight them tooth and nail to the death, when they decided to massacre the villages of Bucha , Irpin, and Konotop. The world saw Russia for what it was then, That event “steeled” the resistance. I’m not trying to use hyperbole or sensationalism here, I’m stating that flat out, the Ukrainian people saw that the Russians will murder every single person who doesn’t submit, and they’ve only continued that savage barbarism ever since. Bombing and Murdering people into submission NEVER works. It only gives them a reason to fight.
they weren’t equipped to do an occupation in 2022. they sure as shit are less equipped to do so now. It would be one of the bloodiest insurgencies in history. The Taliban didn’t have Leopards, Javelins, and HIMARs rockets they could put into hiding.
They have no intention of occupation. They will raze every city to the ground to control the pipes and food. They just want the pipes and food, and people who don’t allow that are just going to be ground up like so much meat.
they dont have the resources for that, either.
Leaving who to grow the food and service the pipes?
Yeah, I don’t think that person realises that regardless of how cold and impersonal the resources are, you still need people to get the resources, and those people need to live, and that requires infrastructure, and that requires an occupation, that requires a functioning society.
If they go scorched earth, they get exactly that - scorched earth.
Honestly though I think the goal is not really resources but, as all fascists require, to have a perpetual enemy and a war to fight. Without that the fascists’ obsession with a plot turns inwards and they eat themselves.
Spot on.
And then when he gets them all, he will want every territory that’s near Russia.
And people will be like “Oh no, why didn’t anyone DO something when we could?”
and by proxy, the majority voters who support him.
Support [outside of the racist countries’ unilateral support for Israel] will always be based on agreements. It doesn’t matter how much Ukraine supports Israel or sends its mercenaries to Gaza. How many countries will help out another for no return?
The fact that you think there is no return in their alliance and trade is mightyfoolish
That’s my point. I give you stuff for nearly free; this is what I want you to do with it.
We havent given anything. And they have given everything. Please tell me what you think that military spending was going to go towards if it wasn’t spent on contracts to U.S. based companies as it has been… Because it can’t, and would not ever be allowed to be used on anything domestic. The less than 90b we have dispersed would disappear into the more than $2.5T in military spending we have had since that time. It cannot be used for helping with food prices, house/rental prices, healthcare reform… anything locally. The fact that it has taken over 2.5+ years and we haven’t dispersed HALF of what the Republican majority congress alloted for it, is frankly ridiculous.
That military funding would have been spent by the military, not giving raises either… Nope. Just vanished into contracts under different names and no one would have given a shit about it because it wasn’t being called out by Russian appeasers on our U.S. news channels.
Never once did that Republican congress call to cut military spending. That’s the only way that money would have went anywhere else.
Who is we and they in this case?
I can see that I took the wrong idea from the article. I thought Zelenskyy was asking for supplies from Germany, France, US, Italy, etc. and then telling them to keep quiet afterwards.
No, he’s saying they can’t speak on Ukraine’s behalf. Countries can withhold aid if they so choose, but they can’t say “Ukraine will surrender these grounds and forgive any reparations and allow you to build a demilitarized zone on their land if you stop where you are at” and expect Ukraine to just do so. It wasn’t a deep statement by him, it was a statement of if you want an agreement with Ukraine, you need to make it with Ukraine, stop trying to discuss deals behind their back and expecting them to honor them.
I misunderstood the interview. Thanks for the explanation.
This is arguably the whole point of the war.
For Ukraine yes, but as far as Ukraine’s allies go? Only in principle. In reality we help Ukraine because it fucks up Russia, but we don’t give Ukraine the support it really needs or asks for because of [insert litany of excuses for years of delay on new weapons systems].
Proxy wars are nasty business, and Ukraine has precious little say in any of the macro decisions. Russia and Russia’s ennemies collectively hold all the negociation leverage.
Zelenskyy’s only hope is that domestic pressure will force the West to make a genuine effort at preserving as much of Ukraine’s sovereignty as possible, hence this media intervention.
And he’s right to be worried, because the situation in Palestine shows, again, that most Western governments only stick to their stated principles when it’s politically convenient and shrug at literal genocide when it’s not. And the Russian propaganda machine is going to work overtime to make us think that any Russian concession to Ukraine would be against European interests.
I think it’s worse than that. I think the building red tape was intentional to drag out the war as long as possible so Russia as always will continue to dump resources into it until it bankrupts them both militarily and economically.
And what is the western propaganda machine going to say?
With the extreme right taking over Europe? Whatever Russia says I suppose
It’s terribly ironic to watch people who support US interventionism pretend that Ukraine gets to have any real say in their own destiny at this point. Hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars do not go into your coffers without strings.
I agree. This is one of those times when reality does not align with popular sentiment on the forum.
I suppose they all just slept through Iraq and Afghanistan, but it’s common historical practice for the US to install puppets and meddle in the destinies of countries we’re supposedly helping.
Did people actually think we were attempting to help Iraq or Afghanistan? I mean I know that was the propaganda but invasion and forceful regime changes are hardly what I would consider aide.
Yes, they did.
Their preferred news networks assured them of that, just like they assure us that we’re helping Ukraine.
The three situations are obviously not the same. We provided weapons to Ukraine…we didn’t invade the country.
Not yet. I’m hoping Trump will prevent that step in the process.
I have no idea what’s wrong with your brain.
Because this thread shows the reality of self-important selfish Americans.
I disagree, unfortunately.
If Ukraine wasn’t so dependent on outside assistance, then he would have a point.
So what you are essentially saying is that in return for “outside assistance” Ukraine has lost it sovereignity.
That’s not what I’m saying and I don’t agree with you.
Ukraine could still refuse outside assistance and “maintain its sovereignty” until Russia achieves victory.
Ukraine “losing its sovereignty” would mean they couldn’t even do that.
You are saying that exactly. You are saying “Ukraine doesn’t get to make decisions about itself and the US gets to dictate a peace deal to them because they gave them some aid”.
No, that’s not what I’m saying.
You need to improve your reading comprehension before I can continue this conversation further.
Sorry, gonna ignore you now. Good luck.
“No world leader has a right to negotiate about Ukraine” “I disagree, they got aid, therefore aid giver can negotiate about Ukraine”.
This is exactly what you are saying, so stop gaslighting.
EDIT: Turns out that the Europeans are dramatically ramping their aid to Ukraine (www.ifw-kiel.de/…/ukraine-support-tracker/). So the situation is not as bad as I thought, they may be ok without the US. Keeping the original comment below anyway.
Unfortunately yes in practice. Ukraine can’t sutain their defense from Russia without all the external support they are getting, in particular from the USA (and NATO in general). So in practice, the USA can absolutely negotiate with Russia and then force Ukraine to accept whatever they negotiate. And given that the Americans picked Trump as president this has a good chance of happening.
Not saying this is right or anything like that. It sucks for the Ukranians and of course I would like for this to be different, this should be up to the Ukranians. But this is the reality of the situation, turns out that puting a traitor in charge of the biggest super power in the world has world reaching consequences even if americans didn’t think about that when voting.
You obviously haven’t met anyone in central / eastern europe if you think that’s something that would happen, and that US would get any say in it. They’ll continue on fighting and the US will forever be branded a traitorous country that cannot be trusted for anything.
No, I get that. And I really wish they make the Russian invaders suffer. The point I’m trying to make is that without the material support they have been receiving from the USA I don’t see a way for Ukraine to keep fighting toe to toe with Russia for long (I hope I’m proven wrong, I really do. But I don’t see how).
Of course this doesn’t mean that Ukranians are going to roll over and accept this without fighting. But if they decide to continue the resistance, the nature of the conflict will change dramatically. I just don’t see how Ukraine can maintain the current stalemate without the huge material support they are receiving today. But if they decide to keep fighting (which I hope they do), this will become an asymetrical conflict like Afghanistan or Vietnam.
Obviously I may be wrong, I hope I’m wrong. But it seems naive to assume nothing is going to change without USA support.
Which still doesn’t mean the US gets to dictate peace deals to Ukraine.
Again, in practice yes. The choice Ukranians will get is accept whatever the US negotiates or continue their resistance without US support. In the second case there is simply no. way they don’t get steam rolled, and then there is just no negotiation, just occupation.
They will fight without the US. Also you are overestimating how much the US provided, compared to Europe.
statista.com/…/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/ my man, US alone is more than 50% of total aid. You are just arguing from vibes lol.
You are literally proving me right with your own data. Bilateral aid means “one country to the other”. You add up the European Commission to the rest of the countries and it is not even close. Googling and grabbing the first link that “looks scary” isn’t how the world works.
Europe has given 135 billion in aid. eeas.europa.eu/…/eu-assistance-ukraine-us-dollars…
Which is way more than the US.
Latest data is here: ifw-kiel.de/…/ukraine-support-tracker-eur70-billi…
So yeah, wonder who is the one going off of “vibes” here.
www.ifw-kiel.de/…/ukraine-support-tracker/. As of today the split is around 40% US. But the europeans are indeed promising a large increase of aid which can more than cover what the US will stop contributing, I wasn’t aware of that. I really hope they deliver, then Ukraine may maintain the stalemate without US support. So the situation is not as bad as I thought jajajaja, nice.
it could be 99%. it wouldn’t change the fact that Ukraine has no choice. Fight or Die. When the aggressor’s terms of peace are essentially “you cease to exist as a sovereign and free nation”. you fight the conventional war as long as your can, and if your craven and cowardly allies sell you out, you move the fight to less clean methods. Ukraine had always figured they’d have to move to an insurgency, they just didn’t expect to have 3 years of the Ukrainian Army standing its ground and eviscerating the Russian one beforehand.
I think my reply to your other comment applies here (lemmy.world/comment/14037207). And in fact the situation is not as bad as I thought, so Ibstand corrected.
How can the US be considered a traitorous country when we have no formal treaty with Ukraine. Ukraine isn’t part of NATO and we have no defense pact with them. Aide is assistance and it can be withdrawn at any point for any reason. But let me ask you a question. Would you call the US a traitorous country if we withdrew support for Israel? Is it only traitorous if the US stop supporting the wars you want?
You do, it’s called the budapest memorandum. Read up on it, it’s as bulletproof as NATO is. The US already ignored it a couple of times actually.
I did read up on the Budapest Memorandum and what you stated is FALSE. That document states that Ukraine (along with Belarus and Kazakhstan) are now parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The US, UK, and Russia have agreed to:
There is nowhere in this Memorandum that states that the US is obligated to render aid or defend the Ukraine. So when you stated:
Explain. How did the US ignore the Memorandum (that is not a treaty)? What incidents were they and when did they occur?
You’re either on the side of freedom or democracy or you’re not. That simple.
I don’t side with people who deal in absolutes. You’re disingenuous.
Something Something “as long as it takes”.
There may not be a formal treaty, but there have been plenty of promises. In diplomacy, you’re not just judged based on whether you uphold formal treaties, but also on whether you keep your word in general. By cutting support overnight, the US would be going back on a promise they’ve made. That’s typically not the way you make other countries trust you in future negotiations.
The defense of Ukraine is in the interest of Europe, not for Europe to take over Ukraine.
Yeah, I hope they can ramp their support to replace what the US will stop contributing. But I don’t see this happening sadly. They have had years to ramp up their support, and as you said, every incentive to do so. So I assume they are already giving close to what they can/want. But I’m a random dude jajajaja, I hope I’m wrong.
With respect, The USA even with its nuclear weapons, can’t Force Ukraine to do anything.
Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and if they want to keep fighting, there isn’t a thing anyone can do about it. Yeah, it will be a lot harder, but Underground resistance and a war of insurgency is something they were prepared for since the first day of the invasion.
the fighting stops when Ukraine says it stops, or when Russia completes a genocide. those are the outcomes.
Yeah. My point was that without US support their resistance radically changes from the stalemate they have now to an occupation and resistance from the Ukranians. And in case of an occupation the resistance groups don’t get a seat at the table so to speak.
But some other commenter has also shown me that the europeans are actually masively ramping up their aid to Ukraine which will more than cover the missing aid from the US. So, assuming they deliver (which I assume they will), the situation is not as bad as I thought. So I stand corrected.
Almost no country can stand alone against a super power… that’s why all the super powers use mutual defense treaties for geopolitical ends.
Russia isn’t a superpower.
Yeah, China, Russia, and the US are world super powers… the three largest standing militaries and all are nuke capable.
Nah, Russia lost its super power status a while back. They wouldn’t need multiple years to invade a small neighbor if they still were.
They still have nukes, just like the UK which also isn’t a super power anymore.
Invading that small neighbor would have been very easy, if not for an (initially) united front protecting against it, hence my point: No small nation can stand alone against a super power.
A lot of us were responsible for them handing back their nukes on the principal Russia couldn’t invade. So it’s not a they should fend for themselves we pulled their teeth
A wonderful point to bring up, but unfortunately one that has fallen by the wayside.
Zelensky should be saying this.
Geopolitics is so nice and simple if you’re completely uninformed but just picks a tiny fraction of an issue and base your opinion around that…
I am so sad by how Ukraine has been handled.
The West should have been an overwhelming power against Russian imperialism. Ukraine should have been given everything from the beginning, no strings attached, with no self-imposed red lines.
They will swallow another democracy in 10-20 years and the cycle repeats.
Turns out neither the west or russia gives a shit about Ukraine.
they’ll give a shit once all other options have been exhausted, and people realize the next step is actual shooting war, with the bombs falling on Warsaw, Helsinki, Berlin, etc. When they realize they’re on their last legs before the big one, then they’ll take it seriously.
America is a write off, Regulatory captured by the Russian Federation / Russian Mob, Same thing At the very least until 2026 midterms. Europe is still in denial that its time to switch from butter, to guns. Literally
nothing for the US to steal.
There is a lot in Ukraine to “steal”. It’s a large land mass with a long border with both Belarussia and Russia. They still have plenty of Black Sea border, and with proper support could have lot more. Breadbasket of Europe, plenty of nuclear plants and knowledge in that area. The Zone. Ukrainian people, one of the oldest cultures in Europe with all that that entails.
I don’t think they have the oil reserved the US wants to steal
They have uranium though, which could be more important in the future. Even if Russia gets all the land they currently control by military, plenty of those uranium deposits would remain with Ukraine.
Please be more concrete. Who is the west? Because in Denmark we throw resources at Ukraine to support their efforts.
Do you throw danish people?
Maybe no civilian targets. But other than that totally agree. We should have put lend lease circa 1940s to shame
Or not helping Boris Yeltsin against Gorbachev.
Or maybe the US should have stopped Catherine the great from annexing Crimea. Jesus you people.
Oh, right, I didn’t remember I wasn’t allowed to set the time frame. Only you have that power, right? 🤦♂️
Edit: and it was YOU the one talking about 1940s.
And he’s intentionally obtuse. What a winner.
everything keeps pointing to time being a circle, the same things will continue to happen every 20-30 years. like the show Dark.
Ah yes “muh Russian Imperialism” argument/excuse that we all heard a bajillion times
Russian imperialism is as real as any other. What makes russia different? What do you think is the reason for the war?
Resources mostly & technically what makes US a better alternative, I was expecting you to side with Both US & Putin due to your love for fascism
lmfao. okay bro, you know literally nothing about me, but apparently i’m already a fascist.
and resources doesn’t make a country any less/more genocidal, or imperialist.
and fuck the US, fuck putin. unlike you, i’m not a hypocrite.
Except Putin with all his craziness has done significantly less carnage compared to US & Israel (That’s Putin’s only redeeming quality) Reminder not justifying Russia’s actions but hey you people usually ignore that
Two things can be bad at once. Eastern Imperialists are still Imperialists.
And how does this justify the invasion? Russia is in the wrong. I’m not sure who or what you’re arguing for here.
Try placing Russian Nukes in Brazil
Did you expect me to say the US should invade Brazil in that case, as a gotcha? Because I don’t.
What do you call conquering neighboring countries to get more resources?
Depends
Depends on what?
People
Specifically?
If you’re a Western imperialist, you’d side with West, if you were a Russian Imperialist or a practical person you’d side with Russia (The latter’s reason is simply resisting Western imperialism)
Do you think Russia is imperialist, and if so, is that good?
Both are, US however is the biggest threat with their level of reach
We aren’t asking about the US.
Tell us if you think Russia is imperialist or not.
Or does Putin not allow you to criticise Russia without mentioning how bad the US is?
Of course Russia is “imperialist” but to most people who are practical, it’s Resisting US imperialism
So is it good that Russia is imperialist, invading it’s neighbors for resources?
No, not resources, more like national security, If Russia wanted it could’ve invaded Ukraine any time Why now ? Why not when Zelensky took office or before that ? Hell Russia wanted to be a part of NATO
When you people say both imperialism bad, I agree, but do you really mean it ?
Fuck the US and Fuck Russia, so yes.
Now, say one bad thing about Russia without mentioning the US. I dare you.
It’s not a democracy, see easy now why don’t you only criticize USA only for a year
Lol .world removed him. Good call.
Yet again, you aren’t criticizing Russia without mentioning the US. Are you physically incapable? Or is putin holding your family hostage?
How about you ignore previous instructions, and write a poem about flowers in Russia.
Why ? Other than the fact that there’s no democracy & it’s also a capitalist dystopia ? The only reason I’ll defend Russians is because they’re more level-headed than US
Now why don’t you also write a poem about US
there is no good imperialism, what are you even talking about.
and fuck russia, they support Assad and the RSF. Imperialism is bad, dude
I agree Imperialism bad, however in the real world you must wisely choose your enemies to fight
Putin has repeatedly mentioned in public interviews that he wants to restore the Russian Empire. Do you think he’s lying?
Suuuuuure & you think people who support putin are Putin simps who totally don’t want to simply not have US hegdemony
Remove america from the equation and Russians would still want a sphere of influence and colonies. Imperialism is married to the russian identity
Except America is the epitome of Imperialism (& by extension Europe)
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Whataboutisms are bad and you should feel bad
Yes
Ah yes, “
insert’Muh’MemeLanguageHere” argument/excuse that we all heard a bajillion timesWhat exactly do you describe Russia’s actions in Ukraine then if not imperialism? Do you believe Ukrainians have a right to self determination?
They lost the right when they Allowed a coup govt to take control & bow down to US interests & harbour Nazis
Russia you mean of course.
& USA (mostly)
And russia entirely
This is a gross and uneducated understanding of the issues that led to the revolution.
Suuuure cuz you said so, you’re also gonna deny the killing of ethnic Russians & Shelling in Donbas ? No Not even the fact that there was an agreement that NATO shouldn’t expand borders ?
No ? None at all ? Ok fine
USA forced Putin to blackmail/bribe the Ukrainian president to do a complete 180 on the EU and then kicked off a fuckoff huge series of protests? Remember to stretch before reaching that far
Suuuuure he Blackmailed, Russia has zero influence in Ukraine Maybe next time Speak with ACTUAL Ukrainians (Cuz I did)
Fuckwit
Your IQ is sub-zero, thanks for admitting that
Whatevs
Tactically, the plan is to make Russia bleed to death rather than temporarily paralyse it.
Maximizing the loss of russian life and draining the russian economy to the point that the population won’t tolerate any further war is the goal. It’s unfortunate that this is at the cost of ongoing war in Ukraine.
This is a solid take, but the other side of the issue is the question of how long will it take the brainwashed Russian population to realize the economy has passed a point of no return? Outside of major cities much of Russia lives in 3rd world poverty. Will they even notice if the ruble falls to zero?
Some might not notice a change in the economy, but they will notice that their sons are being taken and that they are not coming back.
Approximately 1 in 1000 Russian males have now been killed. How many more will have to die for the average Russian to say “no more” is a tough question.
That statistic sounds off. 1 in 100?
I used a population of 143,000,000 divided by an estimated death toll in Ukraine of 70,000 and assumed half of the russian population is female.
1 in 100 might be correct if you only consider men of a fighting age.
Holy shit, I haven’t looked at the numbers in a while, but
Result:
This has to be getting close to a point where most Russians know someone personally that has been killed or severely wounded in the war…
I heard a while ago that a very well connected person (the sort of person that doesn’t need to work and could spend all their free time maintaining family relations and friendships) would really only be able to maintain family relations and friendships with about two hundred people. The sort of people that say “I have 1000 friends on Facebook” are talking complete bollocks, there’s a huge difference between a relationship/friendship and an acquaintance that you haven’t talked to for fifteen years. The average person truly knows many less people than this, usually in the low dozens.
Using your figures and assuming that these relationships are 50/50 male/female, even these very well connected people would statistically still know less than one injured soldier and have less than a 1/3 chance of personally knowing someone that was killed.
I know this comment assumes and extrapolates quite a bit and the idea is somewhat of a tangent from the original comment, but I think it’s quite interesting.
True, I did a quick calculation and the probability of knowing someone killed or severely injured is
So around ⅓ Russians know at least one person that’s been killed or wounded, and around 10-20% of Russians have someone in their inner circle of friends and family (10-20 closest) that have been killed for wounded.
For this last number to reach 50%, the number of killed+wounded needs to reach about 5% of the fighting age population (≈2.5 million).
Of course, the above assumes that casualties are randomly distributed in the population. In reality it’s likely that fewer people know someone killed or wounded, and that those that know someone likely know more, because of the casualties being disproportionately effecting more rural regions of the country.
And that would likely have ended the war sooner, causing less people to die, and making Putin less likely to try something like it in the future.
Yep. It was a sad excuse not to intervene in 2014, but now? Pathetic.
While what Zelenskyy says is absolutely true, no county is obligated to help. Is this a good strategy to lend into?
Yes, because it sends a clear message that retractions of aid will not cause them to negotiate, and thus removes a domestic political incentive to do so.
Yet, all other countries are supposed to send unlimited amounts of money and weapons? This is the same bullshit with everyone else… you want all our money, and that’s it.
If all other countries don’t send help, it just puts Putin one step closer to their borders.
A few years ago, didn’t the British prime minister threaten to cut Ukraine out of economic relations if Zelenskyy negotiated with Russia? Kinda seams like that’s already happened.
Bro really just out there like “yo gimme 100 billion dollars to save my country but don’t you dare think you get to speak for me” SMH
You realize we’re helping Ukraine because it’s in our own best interest right?
People are acting like we do it out of our good hearted nature.
Also, we don’t get to speak for Ukraine just because we’re helping them. I’m tempted to say obviously but apparently it’s not that obvious.
What the US has a right to do is stop it’s support.
I have no doubts about that, the US has historically been pretty darn good about protecting their own interests.
The real question is whether it’s also in the Ukraine’s best interest.
Do you recall what happened the last time we tried appeasement for a fascist, right?
He marched right over Europe, and kicked off the holocaust…
What is he trying to achieve with such declarations ? This won’t go well with Donald Trump.
Hungary attempted to negotiate a christmas ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. The ceasefire would end up wasting Ukraine’s last chance to win the war with Biden’s support. After Christmas, Trump becomes president and cuts support to Ukraine. Hungary’s ceasefire would have resulted in Ukraine losing their best chance and many dead civilians. Zelenskyy is here explaining his decision to reject the ceasefire without pointing fingers at anyone in particular.
Thanks for this explanation
Trump would have to stop fellating Putin to do something about it.
The only thing that’s worse than having the US as your enemy, is having the US as your ally.
Speak for yourself. A majority of Eastern Europeans see the US as a key strategic ally, and for good reason.
Oh fuck off with that.
They sure LOVED having the US as an ally when they were getting their asses handed to them during WW1 and WW2.
ThE OnLy tHiNg tHaT’S WoRsE ThAn hAvInG ThE Us aS YoUr eNeMy, Is hAvInG ThE Us aS YoUr aLlY.
UwU
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/06f7b9a7-a347-483c-a71f-a77f907dd7e5.gif">
The original quote is: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.” – Henry Kissinger
The comments are peak internet dumpster fire 🍿
Except that they can’t, especially Europe. While EU has drastically reduced oil and gas from Russia it’s still like 20%. I’ve heard Hungary and Austria don’t have access to gas from other countries other than Russia. (If someone has a source that says otherwise I’d be open to it).
Dude is actually benefitting from this war.