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.
I disagree, unfortunately.
If Ukraine wasn't so dependent on outside assistance, then he would have a point.
So what you are essentially saying is that in return for "outside assistance" Ukraine has lost it sovereignity.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/ my man, US alone is more than 50% of total aid. You are just arguing from vibes lol.
it could be 99%. it wouldn't change the fact that Ukraine has no choice. Fight or Die. When the aggressor's terms of peace are essentially "you cease to exist as a sovereign and free nation". you fight the conventional war as long as your can, and if your craven and cowardly allies sell you out, you move the fight to less clean methods. Ukraine had always figured they'd have to move to an insurgency, they just didn't expect to have 3 years of the Ukrainian Army standing its ground and eviscerating the Russian one beforehand.
I think my reply to your other comment applies here (https://lemmy.world/comment/14037207). And in fact the situation is not as bad as I thought, so Ibstand corrected.
You are literally proving me right with your own data. Bilateral aid means "one country to the other". You add up the European Commission to the rest of the countries and it is not even close. Googling and grabbing the first link that "looks scary" isn't how the world works.
Europe has given 135 billion in aid. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america/eu-assistance-ukraine-us-dollars_en?s=253
Which is way more than the US.
Latest data is here: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-tracker-eur70-billion-in-new-aid-promised/
So yeah, wonder who is the one going off of "vibes" here.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/. As of today the split is around 40% US. But the europeans are indeed promising a large increase of aid which can more than cover what the US will stop contributing, I wasn't aware of that. I really hope they deliver, then Ukraine may maintain the stalemate without US support. So the situation is not as bad as I thought jajajaja, nice.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..