Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stressed that no country or world leader has the right to negotiate with Russia on behalf of Ukraine. He noted that any dialogue with the Kremlin must be held according to an agreed action plan and only from a position of strength.

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.

  • Maalus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23·
    9 days ago

    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.

    • trollbearpig@lemmy.worldEnglish
      38·
      9 days ago

      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.

    • Eezyville@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      216·
      9 days ago

      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 Aide is assistance and it can be withdrawn at any point for any reason.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?

      • thebestaquaman@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        7 days 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.

      • Maalus@lemmy.worldEnglish
        123·
        9 days ago

        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.

        • Eezyville@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          23·
          9 days 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?