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.
The article only summarizes it shortly, but the parallels to the Munich Agreement from 1938 are really scary.
Hitler’s aim was to take over all of Czechoslovakia by breaking it apart. The subject of the Munich Agreement was the Sudetenland, the region bordering Germany. Before there were some votes and local political forces expressing the wish of the German minority in the Sudetenland to create an independent state (See the parallels with DNR, LNR and Crimea). This was used by Hitler to justify taking over the region. Suddenly it wasn’t about independence anymore, but about inclusion into Germany.
The Czechoslovakian government in Prague obviously hated the idea, but they were not invited to the talks in Munich. Only afterwards were they made aware of the decision that would be imposed on their nation. Who was invited was fellow fascist Mussolini from Italy, as well as France and UK, who gave in and signed this agreement, giving international support to Germany just taking over parts of neighboring nations.
Their reasoning was, if they were to disagree, Hitler would assert his will by force and take Czechoslovakia militarily, starting a large European war (that is also the reason Prague was forced to accept the decision: the alternative was a war they could never win, they could not count on any outside help). This was the so-called appeasement policy by the UK. They bought “peace” in exchange for territories they didn’t own but felt the right to decide over. We all know how this heavily-priced peace turned out. At most it gave the allied forces one more year to prepare for WWII.
I see a better parallel with the partition of Poland in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with these talks. The Munich Agreement was the Minsk agreements and letting russia have Crimea.
I don’t think Ukraine will get Donbas and Crimea back. The Donetsk & Luhansk republics would violently resist any attempt by Kyiv to absorb them back into Ukraine.
The Donetsk & Luhansk republics would violently resist any attempt by Kyiv to absorb them back into Ukraine.
LOL
You know that whole rebellion thing was created by Russia right?
It’s funny to me how both sides say this about the other. There were two rebellions in Ukraine backed by foreign powers, and which one you think is legitimate and which one was created by foreign meddling doesn’t seem to have anything to do with any facts on the ground, it’s entirely about which global hegemon you support.
In reality, both the succession movement and Euromaidan involved a combination of foreign agitation and popular support, and it’s nowhere near as black and white as either side pretends.
Fuck your disingenuous bothesidesism.
Western support of Euromaidan (what you erroneously call “meddling”) isn’t remotely comparable to the straight acts of war that Russia committed in the Donbas.
Of course not. It’s not meddling when we do it, because we’re the good guys.
Our support of an organic democratic movement to overthrow the old corrupt regime, their meddling support of proxies to undermine the legitimate government.
Hey fuckwit, you didn’t reply to a single thing I said.
Europe supported the Ukrainian people vocally, but verbally during the Maidan.
Russia armed and funded extreme Russian nationalists, you know like actual nazi scum, and sent them to Ukraine led by FSB officers, controlled directly from the Kremlin. Nobody in the Donbas asked for this, except for retarded nazi scum.
Ah fuck, I just see that you are lemmy.ml tankie scum. Of course you are siding with autocratic fascists. blocked
It isn’t a peace deal.
It is a deal to bully someone else together.
History is full of such examples
Zelenskyy has stated that he is not willing to negotiate with Putin as well as that they will not settle for less than getting back all the occupied territories including Crimea. There is no peace deal to be made with these terms as the starting point.
He’s just bargaining. Internal preparations for the deal have already started. Such as taking Ukrainian oligarchs to court so they give up their mineral rights.
This isn’t a peace deal, this is a conspiracy. Ukraine has zero obligation to accept any of this. However they will have to start making considerations about a Polish Underground state type of ordeal. This fighting is not going to stop for a decade more. The region is going to resemble fucking Afghanistan.
. Russia has no intention of stopping and they might as well tell MAGA to go fuck themselves, and Europe better get ready to join.
I hope Ukraine wins and turns on America. I would love to see Trump’s face.
I will not be the least bit surprised if there’s a future in 5 years where Ukraine no longer exists as a state, and Bitter Ukrainian refugees commit terrorism attacks against the United States.
There is a reason Treachery is the lowest circle of hell in dante’s inferno.
that is because zelensky and europe don’t want peace.
I could believe that of any major country directly profiting from this. But what’s your reliable source for all that, especially Zelenskyy?
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.
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
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?
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.
Russia doesn’t want peace. Russia wants Ukraine
War needed to end years ago, any end in sight should be welcomed and anyone preventing that from happening investigated.
any end in sight should be welcomed
Russia could stop the war any day by just going back to their country. No such possibility for Ukraine, they could only stop by being subjugated by Russia.
Ukraine could have prevented the war in the first place by adhering to the terms of the peace treaties they signed beforehand.
Russia could have prevented the war by, you know, not invading Ukraine. It’s not hard not to attack and invade your neighbors, most countries manage that.
Ironic to say that in the context of Ukraine starting a war of ethnic cleansing within its own borders
It’s ironic to tell Russia not to invade other countries because Ukraine didn’t invade other countries? Sorry but don’t see the irony.
Oh cool you’re literally doing the exact same nazi apologia Candice Owens did when she said the only thing they did wrong was export their genocide. So fucking crazy that Ukraine supporters always end up quacking like ducks.
I just said I don’t see the irony though.
When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.
Elephants are intelligent.
There’s a lot of different kinds of intelligence.
Europe is about to learn the deveststing reality of your home being picked apart in peace deals or whatever by foreign superpowers without any real say. I don’t feel bad for Ukraine in the slightest, they supported Israel since the early days, and felt no remorse, I feel no remorse if all of Ukraine was annexed
I’m pretty sure Ukraine is already used to being invaded and picked apart by superpowers without any real say
By superpowers plural? Today yeah, 3 years ago, also sorta yeah but more hidden. Besides Ukraine wants to be aligned with the west and now America and Russia are the only two who have any say
I was thinking more about their history of being occupied for the last millennium, invaded by the mongols, then occupied and partitioned by many states, including the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, the Ottomans, the Austrians, then finally conquered by the Russian tzars, then having their independence dreams being shattered by the Soviets, then being invaded by the Nazis and now by Russian Federation, with the latest nail being Trump’s actions.
So yeah, superpowers plural
deleted by creator
They are not in charge, the US/NATO is. They are merely only doing the fighting and dying.
As it was written decades ago by what people call a philanthropist for some reason:
the combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO would greatly enhance the military potential of the Partnership because it would reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries, which is the main constraint on their willingness to act.
They are very much in charge. They are the ones on the front lines, they don’t have to stop fighting just because Trump says something.
LOL the people are putting recruitment centers on fire.
The kidnappers have to fight every time they try to kidnap some poor kid or granddad. zelenski, who has almost no suppport from the people and is illegally in charge tru not having elections will do anything his masters tell him.
It was very clear the UK/US didn’t want peace and sabotaged the deal they almost had. This has nothing to do with Trump, everything with a hopeless situation that already should’ve been clear even before the summer ‘offensive’ that got them literally nowhere.
But it took even more time for most propaganda good news fantasy media to have the courage to print the truth while reality was catching up to them. Hey even now there are still clowns egging them on saying they can win this. But you can think what you want, the facts and reality will decide, not wishful thinkingNice Russian propaganda you spreading.
How many rubles does it pay? Or are you paid in a currency that isn’t in freefall because of an illegal war.
Even what you said is true, that still does not justify an invasion.
LOL you really tick all the boxes of an unoriginal Reddit brainrot drone. Russian propaganda.
How many rubles does it pay?
I bet you also use the Xi bucks 100 social credits.
You’re cringe and boringWhat I said IS true, and NATO expansion with nukes right on Russia’s border + having illegal nazi the coup regime attack the ethnic Russians in the east is valid reason to intervene.
The ukes have been used as a proxy by the US , their usual MO. No sympathy for them.
Don’t you wish you were back on the Reddit circle jerk where you could have me banned for an opinion that goes against the US regime narrative.
Go cry over there.
I’ll give you this, you stay on message. But no. If things were as bad as you suggest then the front line would have collapsed and Russia would be in Kyiv right now.
The front collapses when they run out of people.
And that is a fact, it’s not a suggestion or opinion.
There aren’t going to more people to send.
Honestly do you think then can achieve anything more than going backwards slowly?It is the US that wants them to lower the age to 18.
To the last Ukrainian.
They benefit in plenty ways2 day old account throwing shit on the Ukrainians…
is that your brilliant 2 cents instead of anything remotely relevant?
Here’s something relevant:
Troll alert!
Your claim that Ukrainians are merely “doing the fighting and dying” under US and NATO direction, citing George Soros’s 1993 essay, is both a misinterpretation and a profound insult to the bravery and autonomy of the Ukrainian people.
In the essay, Soros discussed the potential for integrating Eastern European manpower with NATO’s technical capabilities to enhance collective security. This proposal aimed to create a more balanced and cooperative defense structure in the post-Cold War era, not to relegate Eastern Europeans to the role of expendable forces. Soros emphasized the importance of political and economic collaboration to support emerging democracies, with military considerations being just one facet of a comprehensive strategy.
Since Russia’s unprovoked invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable resilience and independence in defending its sovereignty. The Ukrainian government and armed forces have made strategic decisions, leading successful counteroffensives and reclaiming occupied territories. Their determination has not only defied global expectations but has also galvanized international support.
Your remarks diminish the profound sacrifices made by Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. The resilience of Ukrainians is evident not only on the battlefield but also in their daily lives. Civilians have engaged in acts of defiance, from producing essential military supplies to maintaining cultural institutions under siege. To reduce their struggle to mere pawns in a geopolitical game is an affront to their courage and agency.
It is imperative to approach discussions about such critical matters with a well-informed perspective. Recognizing the agency and bravery of the Ukrainian people is not only a matter of accuracy but also of respect. Mischaracterizations not only distort the truth but also unjustly belittle the experiences of those enduring the hardships of war.
All those who defend a free world should acknowledge the undeniable evidence of Ukraine’s sovereign efforts and the extraordinary bravery of its people. Let us honor their sacrifices by portraying their struggle with the dignity and respect it unequivocally deserves.
thanks chat GTP I hope your AI isn’t conscious and won’t be offended when I don’t read your BS essay
I took the time to look up the Soros essay, identify the quote to gather context, and craft a thoughtful response. GPTs are a tool—some use them to replace thinking, but the wise use them to enhance it. I stand by every word I wrote.
Your response, on the other hand, dismisses an argument you didn’t even bother to engage with. Instead of refuting my points, you crafted a strawman to wave away the discussion entirely. That speaks volumes—not about AI, but about you.
I didn’t use any AI to write this reply. But something tells me that doesn’t matter to you in the slightest.
ChatGTP is shit.
It is wildly unreliable at best and often straight up lying and giving misinformation.
The irony that you call yourself wise for using it. LOL
I did waste precious seconds reading the first lines before I noticed your cheap trickery.
If I recall it mentioned context, as you do this time.A little story about ‘context’ and factcheckers.
Probably ShitGPT got the mustard there.
I almost didn’t believe the appauling Soros quote the first time it got mentioned to me so I factchecked, since I’m wise.
One of the results was from one of those respectable, totally unbiased don’t fall for Ruzzia propaganda! factcheckers.Title:“Did Soros say this? Answer: no”
When you read the rest of this garbage they mention in fact that he did literally say this but “we have to look at the context and then we have to say he didn’t”.
Which is sometimes a valid argument.
Only problem, there was zero context to misunderstand or interpret this. So basically another lie to cover their first lie.
But anyway enough about this quote. There’s plenty of evidence for decades the US wanted this to happen. But something tells me that doesn’t matter to you in the slightest.Ah, the classic approach: dismiss, insult, deflect, and avoid any actual debate. Instead of engaging with the content, you ridicule the tool I used to refine my response—conveniently ignoring that I did my own research before ever consulting it. You also claim to value context while simultaneously insisting that a single sentence in a decades-old essay should be taken as gospel without any consideration for its broader meaning or intent."
“Your ‘fact-checker anecdote’ is particularly amusing, since it ironically proves my point. Context is precisely what separates informed discussion from cherry-picked outrage. But of course, why wrestle with complexity when you can just claim ‘there’s plenty of evidence’ without citing a single source? That’s not wisdom—it’s just lazy.”
"And yes, something does tell me that none of this will matter to you in the slightest. But at least I have the courtesy of engaging with ideas instead of hiding behind sneering dismissals. Enjoy the illusion of superiority—it’s the only argument you seem interested in making.
Now you want to gaslight me for not wanting to debate ShitGTP?
You sure have some nerve.a single sentence in a decades-old essay should be taken as gospel without any consideration for its broader meaning or intent.
And there we go, you believe the context excuse while I said THERE IS NO CONTEXT.
Nothing in that document negates that statement. If there is something that shows that part can be misinterpreted then YOU prove it.As I said there’s plenty of proof the US/west is was involved, from the funding decades ago and the failed orange revolution to the nazi coup that the west claim as peaceful while they clearly used arms and extreme violence.
It is also proven it was the regime changers who shot at protesters to escalate violence.
OC that is years later and the dammage is done, the MSM won’t report those things anyway.
I bet you also missed that in your ‘research’.
And I bet you also missed the leaked call where the US is deciding who should run that totally independent democratic country.
Or the west training and arming nazis to prepare for the war.
This while the Minsk agreements were in effect but admitted by Merkel they never ment to honor them.There’s plenty of things, maybe look further than the US regime echo-chamber.
https://thegrayzone.com/?s=ukraine https://www.mintpressnews.com/?s=ukraine
:::
Ukraine wasn’t invited to the decision to fight a proxy war either, or have its government overthrown in the Maidan Coup. And when they attempted peace talks before, their western handlers ordered them to keep fighting.
Ukrainians: Fight to defend their country from Russian attack
Western countries who don’t like what Russia is doing help Ukrainians
Some silly person online: YOU’RE FIGHTING AN AMERICAN PROXY WAR
They’re just trying to defend their country.
And when they attempted peace talks before, their western handlers ordered them to keep fighting.
What’s this referring to?
Ahh. The old hasbara strategy of pretending nothing happened before that. Nice.
Ahh. The old hasbara strategy of pretending nothing happened before that. Nice.
I don’t know what that means tbh.
Link
The article and the relevant section from Wikipedia both describe how the talks failed on multiple issues, with one part being the refusal of giving security guarantees.
Speaking further and explaining Kyiv’s refusal to accept the proposal, Arakhamia said that it would require a constitutional change, given that Ukraine’s Constitution states its intention to become a NATO member.
Additionally, he emphasized a lack of trust in the Russian position.
“There is no, and there was no, trust in the Russians that they would do it. That could only be done if there were security guarantees.”
Arahamiya clarified that signing such an agreement without guarantees would have left Ukraine vulnerable to a second incursion.
The idea that a Boris Johnson (of all people) saying “shouldn’t sign anything with them at all – and let’s just fight” was their “Western handlers ordering them to fight” is pretty funny.
So you believe the Ukrainian officials confirming this are lying?
The Wikipedia entries are maintained by western propagandists. I wouldn’t put much faith in the credibility.
I don’t know who Ukrainian official you mean, other than that I quoted same person as your article did (Arahamiya/Arakhamia). In those links he isn’t confirming your take that “Boris Johnson (of all people) saying “shouldn’t sign anything with them at all – and let’s just fight” was their “Western handlers ordering them to fight””.
The Wikipedia article has links to their sources (news articles) who come back to the same things said in your linked article (from The European Conservative). It’s just that the article you linked gives a lot more weight (an outright claim of being forced) to the Boris episode than many other sources or from what I’ve seen, Arahamiya/Arakhamia (their source) does himself. He doesn’t seem to have said what the title of your article (about being forced) claims. Or if he did, they didn’t quote that part.
The Wikipedia entry referencing news articles doesn’t mean much if the articles themselves are pushing western propaganda. Especially considering how many news agencies are (or were) on the payroll of USAID, I wouldn’t expect to see them challenge the NATO narrative.
Giving more weight to Wikipedia articles than Ukrainian officials is definitely… an interesting choice.
They’re all referencing the same interview and the same quotes from the same person… None of them seems to disagree on what he said as such. He just literally doesn’t in any of the quoted parts in any of the articles linked claim or confirm what your news article claimed it confirms, they’re just making a claim of their own on the meaning of his words and their own opinion. That’s the difference.
Hell, you linked to The European Conservative which is an outright even in the name politically biased news source. But it’s the same quotes on all of them, so that part doesn’t matter since the actual interview is there.
Giving more weight to Wikipedia articles than Ukrainian officials is definitely… an interesting choice.
It’s the same exact official that’s being quoted in all of the news articles. How are you not getting this… The official being quoted just doesn’t say what you claimed he did. You saw Wikipedia and thought that’s your way out of your claim but missed the whole thing of it being literally the same person with everyone referencing literally the same interview lol.
