Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating
Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating
A decision to negotiate over the heads of the Ukrainians would reveal just how Trump sees Ukraine and Europe.
A decision to negotiate over the heads of the Ukrainians would reveal just how Trump sees Ukraine and Europe.
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
You're viewing a single thread.
that is because zelensky and europe don't want peace.
Ukraine already made peace when they gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for Russia's promise that they would respect Ukraine's sovereignty in the Belarus Memorandum in 1994. A promise which Russia broke repeatedly.
Russia has demonstrated over and over again that it will not abide by its own peace agreements. Russia cannot be trusted to honor any treaty. There can be no peace so long as Russia is a duplicitous kleptocracy.
"In 2014, after a well-prepared[3] US-sponsored anti-Russian coup in Kyiv, Ukrainian ultranationalists banned the official use of Russian and other minority languages in their country and, at the same time, affirmed Ukraine’s intention to become part of NATO. Among other consequences, Ukrainian membership in NATO would place Russia’s 250-year-old naval base in the Crimean city of Sebastopol under NATO and hence U.S. control. Crimea was Russian-speaking and had several times voted not to be part of Ukraine. So, citing the precedent of NATO’S violent intervention to separate Kosovo from Serbia, Russia organized a referendum in Crimea that endorsed its reincorporation in the Russian Federation. The results were consistent with previous votes on the issue.
Meanwhile, in response to Ukraine’s banning of the use of Russian in government offices and education, predominantly Russian-speaking areas in the country’s Donbas region attempted to secede. Kyiv sent forces to suppress the rebellion. Moscow responded by backing Ukrainian Russian speakers’ demands for the minority rights guaranteed to them by both the pre-coup Ukrainian constitution and the principles of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). NATO backed Kyiv against Moscow. An escalating civil war among Ukrainians ensued. This soon evolved into an intensifying proxy war in Ukraine between the United States, NATO, and Russia."
from former ambassador chas freeman. you know what came after this ? a brokered peace agreement by osce france and germany in which various terms were settled which neither france, nor germany, nor ukraine were intending to uphold. this is the minsk agreement.
there's a lot you like to leave out, and i'm sure you'll deign to forget this history, too.
edit: to the one user who upvoted me: i see you, bless your heart and open mind- more than makes up for the dozens upon dozens of salty idealogues
You say coup, rest of the rational world says anti corruption revolution.
you may notice the "quotation marks" and the attribution. 'revolution of dignity' lol
Citing Crimean election results from a nation that “keeps overwhelmingly voting Putin into office, as his opponents are too dead to run” is a bold move.
What the fuck source are you even quoting from?
NATO aggression is one of Putin's favorite talking points. If you're just going to parrot his propaganda then no one rational should listen to anything you have to say.
Moscow responded by backing Ukrainian Russian speakers’ demands for the minority rights
Where "backing" means "sending Russian military across the Ukrainian border illegally in order to conduct an invasion based on a flimsy pretext", yeah, Russia backed them.
isn't it possible russia has just cause to fear nato build-up on their borders?
Ah yes, from all those times NATO invaded Russia, clearly.
OK so now you're admitting that Russia broke the peace intentionally because of 'fear', and moving the goalpost you set earlier about Ukraine not wanting peace.
Classic bad-faith argument practice.
yes russia broke international law, but everyone and their mother knew about putin's position and pressed it until it was determined from russian perspective that there was no alternative. by the way, international law-- why is it that the USA/israel can ignore it with impunity?
You're moving the goalposts again. Stay on your original point or shut up.
i concede a point to you but i guess i'm just moving goalposts.
referendums... Lol, right...
If I steal your car and tell everyone that I won’t steal more from you if you just let me keep your car… you’d be good with that?
If they have the gun and you don't, what's the alternative?
But you do have a gun
if you're a country and 9 out of 10 of your papers are funded by USAID, you'd be good with that?
I’m sorry but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Is this a joke about how westerners don't understand what the opium wars were about?
i was hauling 20 percent of china's tea in my car when you stole it.
Tell me you're an American who has never left North America without telling me.
another thing you can be confidently incorrect about.
Oh, you went to Australia once. I'm sorry.
He’s probably Russian.
Nah, posts like an American who started with good intentions but has taken America bad to mean that places that oppose the US therefore must be good/better.
The speech by the former US diplomat they like to post is worth a read, as despite some odd dubious or cherry picked data the conclusions are bang on the money, and it is right about it all being a very real politik, not actually good for Ukraine, approach by the US and NATO.
It also has the former diplomat state that Europe (that famously single and unanimous entity), as well as Zelensky (at least before 2024) and Ukraine want peace, and the US and Russia are both more involved in prolonging war to better their own outcomes.
Did you already get the “hate magnet” achievement for having the most downvoted account? If not, you’re definitely getting close.
Lmao.
I could believe that of any major country directly profiting from this. But what's your reliable source for all that, especially Zelenskyy?
okay now that i've given you what you asked for and its been subsequently downvoted, maybe you'd like to share some of your wonderful and trustworthy sources?
edit: lol, second time some weirdo has gone through my entire comment history and downvoted everything i've posted in the last days. stay classy!
Uh, no. I literally just read your reply right now. But you can be confidently wrong about all that.
i said 'some weirdo' sorry if you feel that i'm implicating you. still waiting on your sources though.
That can absolutely be me, but you were wrong, so by circumstance doesn't apply this time. The intent was there nonetheless.
And I'm still waiting on yours.
Well your account is only 3 weeks old, so surely can't have too many posts
306comments / 21days... about 14.5 comments per day- the bulk of them come from entrenched arguments and my addiction to receiving even more downvotes and baseless insults.
Considering the type of shit you say? Well deserved.
i may disagree with you but i don't think you deserve malicious bad faith actors attempting to smear and undermine you for your beliefs... i offer dialogue, i answer questions i'm asked, i try to maintain a semblance of approachability-- i am met with insults and brigading. the type of shit i say is not in a vacuum, i don't suppose you read any of the vitriol i am responding to when i lose my better self to slap back here and there.
i consider chas freeman to be my most reliable western source, but i'm sure there are others.
I meant something more substantial like a link that expands on this instead of some name drop.
https://chasfreeman.net/category/ukraine/ here are 5 speeches on ukraine.
"NATO expansion was legal but predictably provocative. Russia’s response was entirely predictable, if illegal, and has proven very costly to it. Ukraine’s de facto military integration into NATO has resulted in its devastation."
From your suggested reading, this stood out to me. The crux of any argument in Russia's favour seems to be that they were unhappy at the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, and thus felt justified acting preemptively. But ultimately, that was never a demand Russia was in a position to make, so any aggression on their part is not defensible on those grounds, in my opinion.
But ultimately, that was never a demand Russia was in a position to make
Literally what are you smoking. Look at reality. Tell me they weren't in a position to make that demand now that they've asserted themselves.
It's fucking amazing the shit people from your instance will say.
Firstly, basing your opinion of someone on the instance they signed up with is...interesting.
Secondly, I didn't mean that in the sense of they literally couldn't make the demand, but that Russia demanded Ukraine not join NATO, despite having no standing to make such a demand. Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can make its own decisions, they didn't need permission from Russia. Even the quoted article acknowledges that Russia had no grounds for an invasion, and it's generally in support of Russia's position.
And which one would you say touches the heart of the matter of what you say? My time is limited. I think a direct quote would be a great place to start.
i guess the many lessons one is a good start and broad edit: again someone is cycling through alt accounts and downvoting everything i've posted... lol, let's hope its a bot and someone isn't wasting their actual time to totally own me with downvotes.
Sorry to hear you're being targeted like that. Not cool. On the bright side, the points are made up and don't matter here.
I've have read through the essay and I think that the article lends itself to confusion but help me out. Kyiv does want a military resolution but only to rule its dissenting territories, which is arguably a sovereign right when you have your insecure neighbor fueling dissidents, right? This is what was giving me trouble before, because Zelenskyy has been actively calling for peace plans for a few years now. You're almost suggesting that he wants to continue fighting Russia on behalf of the UN. That's one hell of a noble sacrifice that's not quite in their best interest. If anything, the author suggests Zelenskyy has been played like a fiddle. Or am I missing something?
E: Nevertheless, thanks for the link. It was very interesting and I took my time to go through it. I'm tempted to read the other essays when I have more time.
Russia doesn't want peace. Russia wants Ukraine
i want to break russia in two and merge the western states into europe and the eastern ones into china or one of the stans
The Russian infantry is accepting applications from the brainwashed MAGA and Vlad supporters.
That doesn't seem to be what Chad Freeman thinks on the matter.
He seems to post that the US and Russia are pro-continued war, while Ukraine (and Zelensky) would (obviously) like it to end, though probably not at the cost of both Russian occupied zones.
US and Russia both gain from continued warfare, so poor Ukraine is stuck in the middle.