Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy tells Suspilne media platform that under US president-elect Donald Trump the war in Ukraine will end quicker, according to Suspilne website.
Trump, who takes office in January, has said he’d seek a quick deal between Kyiv and Moscow.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz held a phone call earlier on Friday, the first direct communication between the leaders in almost two years and discussed the war in Ukraine.
End the war in Ukraine so that the US can double its war efforts in the Middle East. Is that Trump’s plan?
Don’t also forget about East Asia.
Would love to know the logic here.
Zelenskyy is putting ego aside to try making Trump come to his senses, but never rely on headline, they may be true but also very often misleading to make people read it (rage baits and such)
Let’s not forget that Trump was the first president in history to send weapons to Ukraine. All prior presidents including Obama said it was far to provocative to do so.
Get defs correct
Congress sent wespons to ukraine.
Trump broke the law and delayed the funding in an attempt to blackmail ukraine over US election properganda.
.
TLDR: misleading information for people who won’t scroll to read the rest
@freagle@lemmtgrad.ml: Let’s not forget that Trump was the first president in history to send weapons to Ukraine. All prior presidents including Obama said it was far to provocative to do so.
Weird choice of words, provocative refers to something that arouses a strong reaction, while escalating means to increase in intensity or scope.
U.S. officials were concerned that providing Javelins to Ukraine would escalate their conflict with Russia.
A bit of nitpicking that doesn’t matter til fact-checking the rest of your statement.
Cotton spokesperson Patrick McCann told PolitiFact that Cotton was referring to Javelins, antiarmor missiles provided by the Trump administration. In 2014, Obama rejected a request by Ukraine for those weapons.
…
However, Obama’s White House approved other aid. In total, from 2014 to 2016, the United States committed more than $600 million in security assistance to Ukraine. Under Obama, the federal government started the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which sent other kinds of U.S. military equipment to the country. From federal fiscal years 2016 to 2019, which overlap with Obama and Trump, Congress appropriated $850 million.
You’re misleading people, it did send weapons just not the one that was requested at the time.
Looking at his profile it all makes sense, must be a Trump supporter in hiding wandering Lemmy posts.
Looking at his profile it all makes sense, must be a Trump supporter in hiding wandering Lemmy posts.
Anyone to the left of me is secretly to the right of me.
TLDR: misleading information about misleading information
it did send weapons just not the one that was requested at the time.
Read your own source
Cotton’s “comment is correct in the sense that Obama never approved transfer of lethal weaponry but Trump did,” said Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow in the foreign policy program of the Brookings Institution, a think tank.
What @Freagle@lemmy.zip said is correct [edit] said wrong user lol
Looking at his profile it all makes sense, must be a Trump supporter in hiding wandering Lemmy posts.
Liberal paranoia is getting out of hand. Can’t wait to see what BlueAnon candidate the dems run in 2028
Your own source says Obama rejected sending weapons, but approved other non-weapon aid.
The single comment you sourced says they didn’t want Ukraine’s conflict with Russia to escalate.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/when-america-toes-moscows-line-214970/
Ukrainian leaders told me that the only action that Secretary of State Kerry and other American interlocutors took was to insist that the government in Kiev should do nothing to provoke Russia, in particular strongly urging Ukrainians not to use force
So your insistence that my word choice is nefarious is only reinforced by your anemic attempt at what you pretend is “research”.
You’re misleading people, it did send weapons just not the one that was requested at the time.
No. This is not accurate.
Facts First: Trump is being hyperbolic here. While the Obama administration was criticized for its refusal to provide lethal assistance to Ukraine, it did provide more than $100 million in security assistance, as well as a significant amount of defense and military equipment.
Lethal aid is weapons. Armored humvees are not weapons.
The idea that you think I’m a Trump supporter after reading my comment history is hilarious and says way more about you than it does about me.
I think Z must be playing the game: stroke Trump’s ego.
Referring Zelenskyy as Z which is the pro-Russian war on Ukraine is offensive, isn’t it? Also it’s about the survival of his people, that only shows he can put his ego aside and try to appease Trump, something Trump couldn’t ever do.
Yeah, wish we had a leader like him, no matter how you spell or abbrev his name.
If this were about the survival of his people then he wouldn’t have scuttled the Minsk Agreements. And he would have taken a much better peace deal ~2.5 years ago then he’ll ever get now, saving tens to hundreds of thousands of his people’s lives. But it isn’t about the Ukrainian people, it’s about the Ukrainian state and his own hide. It’s certainly not about the men being dragged off the streets by conscription squads and shoved out to the front line to die.
Russia had no reason to invade Ukraine in the first place.
Right: iT WAs uNProVoKEd!
- 1: NATO expansion
- George Washington Univ., 2017: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard
- Jeffrey Sachs, May 2023: The War in Ukraine Was Provoked—and Why That Matters to Achieve Peace
- Jeffrey Sachs, Sep. 2023: NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine
- 2: US-backed western Ukranians ethnically cleansing eastern Ukraine
- Reuters, 2014: Leaked audio reveals embarrassing U.S. exchange on Ukraine, EU
- Leaked recording between Nuland and Pyatt: audio | transcript
- Counterpunch, 2014: US Imperialism and the Ukraine Coup
- BBC, 2014: Ukraine underplays role of far right in conflict
- Human Rights Watch, 2014: Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians
- Consortium News, 2015: The Mess That Nuland Made Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s regime change without weighing the likely consequences.
- The Hill, 2017: The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda
- The Guardian, 2017: ‘I want to bring up a warrior’: Ukraine’s far-right children’s camp – video
- WaPo, 2018: The war in Ukraine is more devastating than you know
- Reuters, 2018: Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem
- The Nation, 2019: Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine
- openDemocracy, 2019: Why Ukraine’s new language law will have long-term consequences
- Al Jazeera, 2022: Why did Ukraine suspend 11 ‘pro-Russia’ parties?
- Orinoco Tribune, 2022: Former German Chancellor Merkel Admits that Minsk Peace Agreements Were Part of Scheme for Ukraine to Buy Time to Prepare for War With Russia
- Jacobin, 2022: A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War
- Consortium News, 2023: The West’s Sabotage of Peace in Ukraine Former Israeli Prime Minister Bennett’s recent comments about getting his mediation efforts squashed in the early days of the war adds more to the growing pile of evidence that Western powers are intent on regime change in Russia.
- NYT, 2024: U.N. Court to Rule on Whether Ukraine Committed Genocide
- History of Fascism in Ukraine: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV
This was an invasion that did not need to happen.
The US has wanted to Balkanize Russia ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, as laid out by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard. It especially wants to now that, under Putin’s leadership, Russia has kicked the Western neocolonial/noeliberal shock therapy plunderers out of the country.
The US used Ukraine as a pawn to engineer this confrontation, with the hopes of Russian regime change, or better still Russian Balkanization. The US wanted this war. It worked for decades to create this war, much like it worked to create the Soviet-Afghanistan war decades before, to weaken the Soviet Union. The US does this kind of thing all the time.
Imagine if Russia (or say China) were expanding its “defensive alliance”* into south & central America, and making plans to expand it further, right up to the California–Texas border, which would likely lead to “defensive” nuclear weapons right on our back porch. Maybe they’re in talks with Canada as well, in an effort to “contain” the US. And imagine also if there were a large American-speaking population in northern Mexico, which were being ethnically cleansed with tacit assistance by the Mexican government. Realistically—regardless of what is internationally legal (which the US usually ignores anyway)—what would the US do?
*NATO, BTW, is not a defensive alliance.
- The Intercept, 2021: Meet NATO, the Dangerous “Defensive” Alliance Trying to Run the World
- CounterPunch, 2022: NATO is Not a Defensive Alliance
- Noam Chomsky, 2023: NATO “most violent, aggressive alliance in the world”
- Thomas Fazi, 2024: NATO: 75 years of war, unprovoked aggressions and state-sponsored terrorism
- Counterpunch, 2020: The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fascism in WWII, It Discretely Internationalized It
But the US doesn’t make Canada or Mexico regularly feel like they need to join a defensive alliance to protect themselves from the US.
Canada is a NATO member but Ukraine isn’t a CSTO member.
- 1: NATO expansion
Oh sorry, we constantly forget Z is cursed and cancelled.
Elensky
So Trump insists that Ukraine surrenders and Zelenskyy goes along with it I assume is what’s being said here? Now, does Ukraine give up all their land or just what the Russians have captured so they can take the rest later?
The CIA for the last 4 years has reported that Russia has neither the will nor the capability to capture and hold Ukraine. The only people who are saying it are people like you. Russia will not take all of Ukraine because it does not serve them to do so and it is not militarily feasible for them to do so.
This guy’s profile is full of paraphrasing sentences that makes like pro-Russian war on Ukraine and any other Russian/Trump narratives look better. Someone fact-check his comments. Really creepy stuff. Press report on his comments.
Good luck with 7th grade
Press report on his comments.
Good luck with that 😂
LOL. Continuing the time honored tradition of believing that anyone who disagrees with you is an evil nefarious paid actor.
I’d assume what they already captured. Also, I don’t think they’ll have any other option. At least it would be better than losing all the funding and weapons from the US and end up losing their whole country. Trump could very well throw a temper tantrum if they didn’t agree on his “best deal in the history of mankind” as he might call it.
Yes, the deal might contain a freeze-frame solution for the already captured territories. They would be declared demilitarized zones (under russian administration). In addition to that, Ukraine needs to agree not to join NATO (IMO for the next 20 years or so).
It would be a net victory for Russia.
Sources:
-
Several social media comments I read 😊
Ukraine needs to agree not to join NATO for the next 20 years
This is just delaying the war; neither side will agree to this.
Why not? It gives Russia 20 years to subsume Ukraine, so they’ll be fine with it, and Ukraine will be given the choice of “take it or be cut off from all further funding.”
Are negotiations finally happening behind the scenes? Ffs could’ve just done this from the beginning. Fuck boris
Fuck Boris. But not for that. Surrender is not an option.
Russia won, it’s time to start engaging with reality.
Because negotiations will be bad for Ukraine, but they are forced now cause trump.
Why Fuck Boris?
Thanks. I’m not from the UK, I don’t remember what Boris Johnson did in 2022.
I’m also curious about why they said that, but tbh, Fuck Boris (Johnson) is a fair thing to say pretty much anytime.
Hehe
