You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
80 points
*

If your goal is to prevent deaths, surrendering would have been the ideal yeah.

Zelenksy tried to surrender to prevent further deaths, and Boris Johnson refused to let that meeting happen because NATO isn’t finished using Ukranians as crash test dummies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Zelenskyy tried to surrender and Boris Johnson stopped him?! Ooooookay… He maaaybe (all “unnamed” sources) expressed an opinion, which the U.K. learnt the hard way, that you cannot negotiate with dictators. There can be no “peace in our time” with dictators hellbent on destruction.

To cast that as “Ukraine was stopped from surrendering” is just obscene … and yet another Kremlin talking point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
76 points

which the U.K. learnt the hard way, that you cannot negotiate with dictators. There can be no “peace in our time” with dictators hellbent on destruction.

If the UK is convinced that you can’t negotiate with dictators, how does the UK keep entering into arms sales agreements with Saudi Arabia? Do the contracts just appear out of thin air at BAE?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points
*

Sigh.

I am referencing to a dictator that is hellbent on invasion of other countries. We had plenty of relations with Russia before they decided to invade Ukraine and they were a dictatorship before. We have plenty of relationships with China now and they are a de facto dictatorship.

permalink
report
parent
reply
61 points

Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April, according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.

“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”

The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.

Foreign Affairs is a Kremlin propaganda outlet now?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

“Reportedly” means “others report”.

permalink
report
parent
reply

What part of this reads as a “surrender” to you?

permalink
report
parent
reply
50 points

Foreign Affairs is certainly propaganda, just not of the Kremlin variety.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What the fuck is that shit that I just read.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

You’re fucking capable of more reasoning than that, surely. After all, you have a brain that can think and challenge disagreeing views, right?

You really ought to try more and maybe, just maybe realise you may not be in the right here. But hey, you can always try to justify your views.

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

"It’s not clear how Zelenskyy himself responded to Johnson’s reported push to halt peace talks. On the same day of the British prime minister’s arrival in Kyiv, Zelenskyy told the Associated Press in an interview that “no one wants to negotiate with a person or people who tortured this nation.” “It’s all understandable,” he continued. “And as a man, as a father, I understand this very well.” But, Zelenskyy added, “we don’t want to lose opportunities, if we have them, for a diplomatic solution.”

Also the only time the word “surrender” shows up is in a quote here where it was the west telling Zelensky to surrender and flee.

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

What the fuck kind of a lazy ass response is this?

permalink
report
parent
reply

If your goal is to prevent deaths, surrendering would have been the ideal yeah.

This has literally never been true in any war ever. Foreign occupations rarely tend to be bloodless and I doubt a Russian one would have been an exception. At no point were any of the peace talks about Ukraine’s surrender – only renouncing it’s NATO ambitions in exchange for the withdrawal of Russian troops, as per:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/06/boris-johnson-pressured-zelenskyy-ditch-peace-talks-russia-ukrainian-paper

“In the weeks ahead of Johnson’s April 9 visit, high-level diplomatic talks held in Belarus and Turkey had failed to yield a diplomatic breakthrough, though reports in mid-March indicated that Russian and Ukrainian delegations “made significant progress” toward a 15-point peace deal that would involve Ukraine renouncing its NATO ambitions in exchange for the withdrawal of Moscow’s troops.”

At no point was surrender on the table - that would have likely lead to Zelenksy’s detention and execution in the early days of the invasion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I don’t think Zelensky was too keen on capitulating to Vladimir Putin’s demands to destroy his country, after sending in GRU hit squads to kill him and his family multiple times at the outset of the war.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 5.3K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 119K

    Comments