World News

32300 readers

519 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1153

Zelensky dismisses compromise with Putin, pointing to Prigozhin’s death (www.cnn.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

583 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin – the Russian mercenary leader whose plane crashed weeks after he led a mutiny against Moscow’s military leadership – shows what happens when people make deals with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

As Ukraine’s counteroffensive moves into a fourth month, with only modest gains to show so far, Zelensky told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria he rejected suggestions it was time to negotiate peace with the Kremlin.

“When you want to have a compromise or a dialogue with somebody, you cannot do it with a liar,” Volodymyr Zelensky said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I am not so sure who is using who at the minute, but sure. What's for certain is that the Russian military, such as it was, is suffering heavy losses, with plenty of busted myths (invulnerable hypersonics, indomitable Armata etc...). It's a good return for the USA helping Ukraine, no doubt about it.

Turns out Russia are a second tier military, who was halted by previous generation US handheld anti-tank weapons and Ukraine are holding their own using second tier equipment for the most part. Turns out when you put loyalists in charge of the military, they might not be so effective. All the bloviating nonsense coming out of the Kremlin turned out to be hot rectal air.

As for a cease fire, sure, so long as Russia doesn't use that time to reinforce their positions in Ukraine. Because they are occupying Ukrainian land. Would it be acceptable to give up that land (because that is effectively what a cease fire would accomplish, no matter what the "talks" determine)?. Russia understands only strength and force, whether they are using it or recieving it. Giving them a chance to strengthen while "talks" are ongoing only strengthens their position. As we talk Ukraine is encroaching on Donetsk airport, occupied since 2014. Continuing to weaken Russia creates a better position to negotiate from.

And Russia reneged on a prior treaty with Ukraine too, so it's not like they are trustworthy. They have already openly stated Ukraine has no right to exist.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Yes the Russian and Ukrainian military, both made of up actual people many of whom were conscripts, are both suffering heavy losses. That means lots of death. I don't see lots of death as being worth finding out the Russians overhyped their weapons.

Second tier military remarks are pretty surprising to me. I don't get why so many people seem shocked that a country that suffered a decade of basically mob rule and ruthless resource extraction by oligarchs after the collapse of the previous political entity doesn't match up to the last remaining superpower that has had no real war or massive disruption on its land since the American Civil War. Sure, in a peer to peer fight, which Russia against Ukraine is, Russia is not doing the equivalent of 'impressively' taking Baghdad in three weeks. It's a completely different war. And yes the corruption obviously plays a huge role in how underwhelming the Russian menace seems to western audiences. I'm not saying this as some massive Russia supporting spiel, I am just constantly surprised by this take.

I imagine in a cease fire before official peace talks both sides would reinforce unfortunately, that tends to be what happens and I'm under no illusion that it isn't. As to whether it would be acceptable to give up this land, it comes down to whatever is agreed to in the peace talks. I personally am all for giving up land if needed, especially land where there was a legitimate civil war happening before the Russian invasion, but it doesn't have to happen that way. Before the inevitable accusations of 'thats literally appeasement, Hitler, Chamberlain, 1939, etc' a podcast called Citations Needed has a good rundown on why that is an often dishonest framing for situations. Episode 89.

https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-89-how-charges-of-appeasement-equate-diplomacy-with-treason

They also do a good episode on the idea of 'whataboutism' which I wish I had remembered earlier. Episode 66.

https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-66-whataboutism-the-medias-favorite-rhetorical-shield-against-criticism-of-us-policy

Obviously you don't need to agree with their takes, but it helps to put it into perspective.

There has been a lot of discussion around the Budapest agreement and the Minsk agreements on Lemmy already, so I won't go into that as others are more knowledgeable than me.