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.
Dude is actually benefitting from this war.
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
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.
We havent given anything. And they have given everything.
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.
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 original quote is: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.” – Henry Kissinger
ThE OnLy tHiNg tHaT’S WoRsE ThAn hAvInG ThE Us aS YoUr eNeMy, Is hAvInG ThE Us aS YoUr aLlY.
UwU
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).
It’s fucking ridiculous he has to say it out loud
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.
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.
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.
Not only that, but we’re giving fucking BILLIONS of money to Ukraine, we SHOULD have a say so in what happens…
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.
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.
Thus the ridiculous nature of the statement
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.
As an American, I have always found our condict
in South America in particularto 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
It has different messages if you hold it upside down.
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
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.
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.
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 comments are peak internet dumpster fire 🍿
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.
And that’s the problem I have with how “some” of the government is selling this thing… “if we don’t send UNLIMITED funds to Russia, they’ll keep taking over everything!” And I just don’t buy it. Putin doesn’t want to be surrounded by NATO, that’s the sole reason he’s going after Ukraine. He’s not going to “keep going” like some are proclaiming, because he knows that will be a death sentence.
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.
deleted by creator
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.”
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…
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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I agree. This is one of those times when reality does not align with popular sentiment on the forum.
Because this thread shows the reality of self-important selfish Americans.
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.
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.
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.
I disagree, unfortunately.
If Ukraine wasn’t so dependent on outside assistance, then he would have a point.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
