Zelensky Says U.S. Is Conditioning Security Guarantees on Surrender of Donbas (www.nytimes.com)
from silence7@slrpnk.net to world@lemmy.world on 26 Mar 19:48
https://slrpnk.net/post/35803226

President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said that President Trump “still chooses a strategy of putting more pressure on the Ukrainian side.”

#world

threaded - newest

jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works on 26 Mar 20:06 next collapse

A US security guarantee isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

manxu@piefed.social on 26 Mar 20:19 next collapse

That might be precisely the realization that made Zelensky speak like that. He’s not jeopardizing anything at this point. America is not helping currently, and what comes tomorrow doesn’t depend on the promises made on a peace of paper.

WanderingThoughts@europe.pub on 26 Mar 21:48 collapse

USA can’t help or protect Ukraine much. They fired all their stuff at Iran while Iran showed showed the world how the USA can’t deal with cheap drones well. Ukraine has better tech now for these kinds of war.

West_of_West@piefed.social on 26 Mar 20:22 next collapse

You can ask Canadians how reliable a Trump stamped piece of paper is.

Canconda@lemmy.ca on 26 Mar 20:33 collapse

Ukraine doesn’t even need to ask. They literally had nukes until they gave them up in 1996 because USA said they’d protect them (and Russia said they wouldn’t invade).

plyth@feddit.org on 26 Mar 20:48 collapse

Not true. They gave assurances and not guarantees and some of the Ukrainians knew what that meant when they were made to accept it. There are interesting Wikipedia articles about it.

Canconda@lemmy.ca on 26 Mar 20:55 next collapse

What did I say that’s not true? All you did was replace the word “said” with “assurances”. Nowhere did I use the term guarantee.

plyth@feddit.org on 26 Mar 21:03 collapse

said they’d protect them

They help them but they don’t protect.

Canconda@lemmy.ca on 26 Mar 21:17 next collapse

How does that semantical nitpick detract from my point about Ukraine knowing that they can’t rely on the USA?

Some reddit ass shit.

plyth@feddit.org on 26 Mar 21:53 collapse

Why would the US insist on using the unusual word? Because it allows them to keep their word. There are other reasons for not trusting their word but not this contract.

Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works on 27 Mar 00:22 collapse

They didn’t even say that. Unless there’s a different agreement, but the Budapest Memorandum never mentions anything about security guarantees or protection.

Doesn’t change the fact that Trump is a traitorous piece of shit, that the US is an unreliable ally or that helping Ukraine is the right thing to do for many reasons but let’s at least ground things in reality. Unless there’s another agreement I’m not aware of, I’m no history expert but I know I was surprised when I actually read the text of the agreement because I hear this talking point a lot.

PoastRotato@lemmy.world on 26 Mar 20:59 collapse

Given the Trump administration’s abject contempt for international law and treating allies with respect and fairness, I don’t think the distinction holds much water here. Bottom line: Don’t trust the U.S. Period.

plyth@feddit.org on 26 Mar 21:08 collapse

Given the Trump administration

That was long time before that administration. Trump is not a big change in deeds, just in words. The Iraq war was already a very big contempt for international law, as is the decade long regime change in Cuba.

PoastRotato@lemmy.world on 27 Mar 00:25 collapse

Right. All the more reason not to trust the U.S. now.

BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca on 26 Mar 21:03 collapse

The Budapest memorandum has entered the fucking chat

Prove_your_argument@piefed.social on 26 Mar 20:27 next collapse

Nukes seem to be the only security guarantee these days.

Canconda@lemmy.ca on 26 Mar 20:35 next collapse

Ukraine and North Korea would agree.

gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works on 26 Mar 20:46 collapse

So would Israel

WanderingThoughts@europe.pub on 26 Mar 21:52 collapse

Having many drones ready to strike economically important targets is the next best thing.

Archangel1313@lemmy.ca on 26 Mar 20:58 next collapse

So…the US is negotiating for Russia.

[deleted] on 26 Mar 21:28 collapse
.
Greyghoster@aussie.zone on 26 Mar 23:12 next collapse

What security guarantees can the US give? The last ones about giving up nuclear weapons were trashed. Just watching Demented Donny screw the world for whim says that whatever the agreement, it’s worth nothing.

Gsus4@mander.xyz on 26 Mar 23:59 next collapse

A bird in your hand is worth more than two in the bush (and worth a trillion birds in tramp’s hands)…just sayin’.

rwrwefwef@sh.itjust.works on 27 Mar 00:05 next collapse

Zelensky Says U.S. Is Conditioning Security Guarantees on Surrender of Donbas

Problem with this is, how do you enforce it? If Ukraine does choose to vacate its positions in the Donbas, Russia can simply capture them, claim they saw a Neo-Nazi if Kiev, then resume the war in a better position. The Russians army doesn’t seem to want to leave on their side either. It’s a catch-22.

orbitz@lemmy.ca on 27 Mar 00:23 collapse

That’s the best part, with someone you wouldn’t give sharp scissors to in the white house but loves to gargle Putin’s balls, it’s never enforced. Win win for people that should never have a win.

I’m sure Zelebsky is threading the needle of diplomacy to placate Trump’s nutsack and not lose territory to Russia.

Really this is a no win scenario I hope the best for all Ukrainians, from a random Canadian who doesn’t ever think wars (or military escapedes, whatever term you prefer for this or Iran) should be there just to beat up someone smaller or get more territory.

finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world on 27 Mar 02:23 collapse

It’s very Trumpinesque how these things are decided without actually consulting Ukraine.