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.
This is arguably the whole point of the war.
Unfortunately, Trump will do exactly that regardless.
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.
Probably 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.
Yep the Trump deal is currently no NATO and full handover of the two provinces plus anything Russia holds. It is absolutely ridiculous.
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.
probably already has an
instructionagreement to cease all support
It’s fucking ridiculous he has to say it out loud
It is, but that’s what Trump did with Afghanistan.
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.
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
No world leader = hey, you orange turd, you do NOT speak on our behalf.
But stated politically.
Thus the ridiculous nature of the statement
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.
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.
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.
easiest way to become an atheist is to read scripture.
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
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.
It has different messages if you hold it upside down.
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?
Ukraine can 100% continue fighting their invaders without the US. Also, Europe supplies more aid to Ukraine than the US.
https://www.euronews.com/2023/07/28/how-much-has-the-eu-given-to-ukraine-compared-to-the-us
Then why is Ukraine constantly upset US isn’t giving enough aid?
Also, Europe supplies more aid to Ukraine than the US.
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.
It’s not that hard. They don’t need aid to continue to fight, but they do need aid to be able to win.
I see what you’re trying to say and I agree but this isn’t the right echo chamber to be talking like that.
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.
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.
Uh huh, it would be less a russian puppet than the US negotiating another countries’ fate.
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.
Unfortunately the US definitely can since it gave a lot of military aid to Ukraine. It can force Ukraine to cede land
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.
“Mom says it’s my turn with the Donbas.”
Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine alone determines its future and any dialogue with Russia must follow a peace plan based on strength and international support.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 UK 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.
deleted by creator
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.
Dumbass comments like this is why I don’t defend American intelligence abroad
Spoken like someone who has never read an American history book or only watches MSNBC or Fox News.
ShitAmericansSay
Impressive rebuttal.
The dumbass here is you. Whenever the US has given any type of aide it always comes with strings attached. Even right now as the US, France, and Germany is giving aide to Ukraine there are strings attached. Until recently the weapons supplied by those countries were not to be used on Russian soil. That changed in May. If things went as you thought they went then the Ukrainians would take western weapons and walk right into Russia bring the fight with them from the beginning instead of being confined to using western weapons only in Ukraine. But they couldn’t because the countries that’s arming Ukraine said no.
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.
I disagree, unfortunately.
If Ukraine wasn’t so dependent on outside assistance, then he would have a point.
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.
So what you are essentially saying is that in return for “outside assistance” Ukraine has lost it sovereignity.
EDIT: Turns out that the Europeans are dramatically ramping their aid to Ukraine (https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/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.
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:
- Respect the signatory’s independence and sovereignty in the existing borders
- Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense
- Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty
- Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”
- Not to use nuclear weapons against any non–nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves
- Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments
There is nowhere in this Memorandum that states that the US is obligated to render aid or defend the Ukraine. So when you stated:
The US already ignored it a couple of times actually.
Explain. How did the US ignore the Memorandum (that is not a treaty)? What incidents were they and when did they occur?
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.
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.
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.
