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.
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.
And what is the western propaganda machine going to say?
With the extreme right taking over Europe? Whatever Russia says I suppose
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.
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.
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.
On one hand, I get it; it’s their business and they should be at any negotiating tables that involve them. On the other, if, say, Germany made a deal with Putin to leave Ukraine alone that didn’t promise something of Ukraine’s to Russia, would that be bad? It’s one thing to negotiate with shit that doesn’t belong to you, like promising Russia can keep Donsk or some shit, but if they just sold them something of theirs to get them to fuck off, that would be helpful would it not?
That gives Putin an incentive to invade a different country to get more benefit.
Fair point.
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.
deleted by creator
Dude is actually benefitting from this war.
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).
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 US’s problem right? We’re the World Police only when it’s convenient for some, but not others? If it that’s the case, I really wish people would stop hating on our government when we’re doing things like financing small proxy wars…
The US is not the only country that sent help to Ukraine you know.
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.
I think anybody above the age of 5 can see that your deranged opinion is not based on real-life events.
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
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.
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.
Because this thread shows the reality of self-important selfish Americans.
The comments are peak internet dumpster fire 🍿
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.
deleted by creator
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.
sfafsadfasdfasfd
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The US has to funnel BILLIONS into our own military complex because A: Every single other country on Earth depends on us. B: Lots of countries don’t like us.
But let me guess, you most likely live here in the US and are just enjoying the high life, while also criticizing how much you hate everything about it.
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
As an American, I have always found our condict
in South America in particularto be utterly reprehensible.
Thus the ridiculous nature of the statement
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.
No, but I love how some of you think “We only want the US to be the World Police when it’s convienant for SOME, but not others…”
What the fuck is that logic even… Do you think you should be sending equal support to russia? You probably do, given your takes…
Dude, when we help Israel, all of a sudden, America’s bad… but, helping Ukraine is good because it’s “stopping that evil empire Russia!” What about the evil empire of Muslim terrorists? If Israel falls, it’s only a matter of time before their surrounding Muslim countries start trying to expand even more.
LMAO. Okay, I understand now, you’re just trolling. Because nobody’s THAT stupid.
Spotted the liberal. “if I disagree with you, than YOU must be the stupid one!” lol…
It took you six days to come up with that? Is posting your job?
It is, but that’s what Trump did with Afghanistan.
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.
deleted by creator
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 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.
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.
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?
