Zelenskyy: No world leader has the right to negotiate with Putin on behalf of Ukraine
Zelenskyy: No world leader has the right to negotiate with Putin on behalf of Ukraine
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stressed that no country or world leader has the right to negotiate with Russia on behalf of Ukraine. He noted that any dialogue with the Kremlin must be held according to an agreed action plan and only from a position of strength.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.