this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
1331 points (100.0% liked)

World News

45154 readers
3486 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Which still doesn't mean the US gets to dictate peace deals to Ukraine.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They will fight without the US. Also you are overestimating how much the US provided, compared to Europe.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

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?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're either on the side of freedom or democracy or you're not. That simple.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I don't side with people who deal in absolutes. You're disingenuous.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

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.