r/InternationalNews • u/TendieRetard • Jun 03 '24
Ukraine/Russia Zelenskyy accuses China of pressuring other countries not to attend upcoming Ukraine peace talks
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-singapore-shangrila-russia-defense-94ebb72539182a0215c85895725cdd4811
u/Ecstatic_Sky_4262 Jun 03 '24 edited Jun 03 '24
This dude just purchase a casino in Cyprus. If anyone had a little bit of a respect to this comedian , there is your news of the day
0
33
u/Justhereforstuff123 United States Jun 03 '24 edited Jun 03 '24
This dude is so ungrateful it's crazy. He was the one begging China to attend the Davos meeting (the one Russia is excluded from), but now China is pressuring people to not attend?
His proof? China is urging for Russia to brought into the discussion...
Weird that Zelensky is talking about sabotaged peace plans when he willingly went with the orders of Boris Johnson to leave peace talks
-10
u/AwesomeBrainPowers Jun 03 '24
I hate BoJo plenty, but that’s not really what happened.
15
u/Justhereforstuff123 United States Jun 03 '24
At the same time, the article shows that many of the opposing narratives – that neither Ukraine nor Russia are willing to negotiate, or that Ukraine’s Nato membership isn’t important to Russia – are also false
Isn't that the whole point of negotiating? Saying " we would not sign anything with them at all, and let’s just fight” kinda prevents that from happening.
-11
u/AwesomeBrainPowers Jun 03 '24
Paragraph immediately before that:
Johnson didn’t directly sabotage a ceasefire deal in spring 2022; indeed, there was no deal ready to be signed between Russia and Ukraine. The two sides hadn’t agreed on territorial issues, or on levels of military armaments permitted after the war. Ukraine’s position during the negotiations necessitated security guarantees that western states were hesitant to provide.
Ending of paragraph after:
And although there are other reasons why the talks failed, the promise of western commitments undoubtedly did play a role in undermining the Ukrainian willingness to come to an agreement at that time.
So, again: BoJo didn’t sabotage plans, because there weren’t any; Western support (however uncertain) probably informed a Ukrainian unwillingness to get conquered, but that isn’t anyone’s “fault”—besides the Kremlin, who initiated their voluntary war of imperialist aggression in the first place.
9
u/Justhereforstuff123 United States Jun 03 '24
Paragraph immediately before that
And for something to be signed, there would need to be negotiations to begin with. Saying no we shouldn't sign anything is effectively saying there should be no negotiations to get to that point.
who initiated their voluntary war of imperialist aggression in the first place.
Well perhaps NATO shouldn't have couped Ukraine in 2014 to begin with, and turned Ukraine into a military base. After 2 years, we've reached the same conclusion of there needs to be peace talks...
-5
u/TendieRetard Jun 03 '24
Well perhaps NATO shouldn't have couped Ukraine in 2014 to begin with, and turned Ukraine into a military base. After 2 years, we've reached the same conclusion of there needs to be peace talks...
they didn't
-6
u/AwesomeBrainPowers Jun 03 '24
Oh, fun: It’s “Imperialist Apologia O’Clock” again.
First: The Euromaidan was not a “coup”; that’s just pro-Kremlin disinformation spouted by war crime apologists to be consumed and regurgitated by shallow-thinkers who mistake contrarianism for insight and seem to believe that bellicose imperialism somehow doesn’t count if it’s flavored differently.
Second:
After a decade of using paramilitary separatists as a proxy force—and a popular protest movement that saw the ouster of pro-Kremlin politicians and the ascendancy of pro-Western parties instead—the Kremlin just up and invaded a sovereign nation that hadn’t attacked it or expressed any interest in doing so whatsoever.
If this was truly about the expansion of NATO (which, to be clear, is a defensive coalition intended to protect against exactly this kind of thing), then Putin lost this war the very instant Sweden and Finland joined up, doubling Russia’s border with NATO members.
But it isn’t about that, and any honest, thinking person knows it:
Shortly after the invasion, Kremlin mouthpiece RIA Novosti prematurely published a celebratory "news" story that exposed the Kremlin's motivations for the naked imperialism it obviously is.
This is blatant, imperialistic conquest; it's incredibly uninformed (at best) or risibly dishonest (at worst) to suggest otherwise.
7
u/No_Motor_6941 Jun 03 '24
Ironically this is disinformation.
- Euromaidan was indeed a coup. Senior former US officials like Jack Matlock and Chas Freeman have gone on record stating this. The far right at the core of the protests disregarded the February 21st agreement and continued rioting, driving Yanukovych out after the police withdrew and west Ukraine lit on fire (Lviv declared independence). Allied forces in the Rada used the opportunity to seize power, passing lopsided laws without the opposition such as the repeal of the 2012 language law that provoked pro Russian protests. Fria Tider reported at the time that streets in the capital were patrolled by nationalist militias and MSNBC reported the US was developing ties with the far right. The West used the opportunity to set up an entirely west Ukrainian interim government whose cabinet it outlined and whose positions reflected contributions to the protests. After opposition was systematically banned in 2014, turnout in the east and south of Ukraine collapsed.
You are also blatantly wrong in your description of the separatists and Euromaidan. The demands of pro Russian protests in Donbass, like Crimean secession, had overwhelming support as verified by Western and Ukrainian polling. Euromaidan per the same polling (and this was reported by WaPo at the time) lacked majority support, had similar support to the customs union, and was filled with offensive imagery limiting appeal to west and central Ukraine. There is also no evidence Yanukovych was pro-Russian, he was a neutral candidate who ran on EU association.
There is no different flavors of imperialism and contrarianism that suggests. Ukraine is defined by unipolar expansion to achieve globalization. A crisis of capitalism in the country after 2008, which undid the orange government and EU ties, was answered with going after anything Soviet or Russian. Liberalism became based on nationalism which is the cause of war in a multiethnic borderland. The Russian invasion takes place in the context of the world's powers dividing their periphery in the former USSR in order to expand an international system. Western discourse is highly contradictory on this point, simultaneously Russia is an empire and a gas station with a GDP smaller than Florida.
There is no evidence Russia denies the existence of Ukraine or that this, rather than botched European expansion, is the origin of the Ukraine crisis. Putin's July 2021 paper on the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians, a response to Ukraine's reactionary indigineity law, makes it clear Russia views Ukraine as a separate nation. What it contests is the European history of Ukraine, supposedly only obscured by Tsarism and Stalinism, and Ukraine as an anti-Russia. These points are key because Ukrainian sovereignty is defined as progressing the more separated from Russia it is, pitting the state against Russian speakers. This is despite Ukrainian sovereignty declining under globalization and the state decaying.
It's blatantly false that Russia randomly invaded. 2021 was a gross year of escalation starting in the spring when Zelensky banned Donbass opposition media in a show of support to Biden, who reciprocated by declaring Crimea will never be Russian and later in summer signing a flurry of strategic security agreements with Ukraine that reiterated it will join NATO. With Ukraine stating Minsk was impossible to implement, the US signaling it'll place nuclear missiles in the country, and Zelensky stating an intent to deoccupy Donbass and Crimea as Ukraine was NATOized, the ceasefire in Donbass collapsed again like it did in 2020 and Russia intervened in a frozen conflict gone hot. This is entirely due to the West pivoting to confront Russia and China to deal with the global decline of liberal democracy, which came much later in the Ukraine crisis and the reason the conflict stayed frozen for 8 years.
The expansion of NATO in the former USSR is indeed the issue and northern Europe is a non-sequitur and a cope at that. NATO expansion intersects with post Soviet ethnic conflicts and seeks to complete them in favor of the side that supports decommunization, which is tied to who supports the monoethnic European nation-state. This is why NATO expansion clashes with South Ossetia in Georgia, Transnistria in Moldova, and Donbass/Crimea in Ukraine. The international dictatorship this suggests is the driver of war in this region.
1
u/AwesomeBrainPowers Jun 03 '24
Presented without sources, dismissed without consideration.
Also, in all of your ad hominem & vapid sloganeering, you ignored quite a significant bit of my comment.
Here, I’ll repeat it for you:
…then Putin lost this war the very instant Sweden and Finland joined up, doubling Russia’s border with NATO members.
But it isn’t about that, and any honest, thinking person knows it:
Shortly after the invasion, Kremlin mouthpiece RIA Novosti prematurely published a celebratory "news" story that exposed the Kremlin's motivations for the naked imperialism it obviously is.
This is blatant, imperialistic conquest; it's incredibly uninformed (at best) or risibly dishonest (at worst) to suggest otherwise.
4
u/No_Motor_6941 Jun 03 '24
Presented without sources, dismissed without consideration
It is normal for two debates to zero in past common knowledge towards contested claims. It is up to you to demand sources for which claims you'd like to contest. I have sources for all my claims.
I responded to the repeated bit. Please see the latter points in my post.
1
u/AwesomeBrainPowers Jun 03 '24
Your points are borderline gibberish, as no honest, thinking person could credibly suggest that one nation invading another—particularly when that other nation has not in any way attacked or expressed an intent to attack the first—is a defensible response to the first nation's foreign policy issues with an entirely separate entity.
I do not care how much poorly-interpreted brainrot (and outright lies) you want to slather on to that meritless screed: This is the Kremlin seeking to extend influence beyond its borders through force, which is militaristic imperialism no matter how badly you want to pretend otherwise.
→ More replies (0)7
u/Justhereforstuff123 United States Jun 03 '24
First: The Euromaidan was not a “coup”; that’s just pro-Kremlin disinformation
To prove me wrong, you cited a think tank funded by Oil giants, bankers, war profiteers, and other state department linked ghouls, lovely.
This was the case in the 2004–5 Orange Revolution, where foreign NGOs changed little about Ukraine’s corruption and authoritarianism, but achieved the crucial goal of nudging Ukraine’s foreign policy westward. As the liberal Center for American Progress put it that year:
Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The American agents of influence would prefer different language to describe their activities — democratic assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc. — but their work, however labeled, seeks to influence political change in Ukraine.
This was the case in the 2004–5 Orange Revolution, where foreign NGOs changed little
about Ukraine’s corruption and authoritarianism, but achieved the
crucial goal of nudging Ukraine’s foreign policy westward. As the
liberal Center for American Progress put it that year:
Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine?
Yes. The American agents of influence would prefer different language to
describe their activities — democratic assistance, democracy promotion,
civil society support, etc. — but their work, however labeled, seeks to
influence political change in UkraineWhile it may be a long time before we know its full extent, Washington took an even more direct role once the turmoil started. Senators John McCain and Chris Murphy met with Svoboda’s fascist leader, standing shoulder to shoulder with him as they announced their support to the protesters, while US assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland handed out sandwiches to them. To understand the provocative nature of such moves, you only need to remember the establishment outrage over the mere idea Moscow had used troll farms to voice support for Black Lives Matter protests.
So all in all, US backed Right wing actors who sniped police and innocent people, forced the elected president to abdicate under the threat of death isn't a coup? Well it's not like political dissidents have been silenced since then...right? Oh wait no, everyone who doesn't agree with thinning Ukraine's population must be a subversive russia agent! Yeah, that'll justify banning political opposition and remaining president even though his term already expired.
"But the Ukranian constitution allows it!" I'm pretty sure it doesn't allow lifetime appointment, which Z-man is on track to becoming, seeing as Blinken said there would be elections so long as Ukranian territory is occupied. That either means war is going to happen forever/ eastern ukraine is going to rejoin. I can assure you the latter isn't going to happen.
If this was truly about the expansion of NATO (which, to be clear, is a defensive coalition intended to protect against exactly this kind of thing)
I feel so defended with the genocide happening in Palestine, the overthrow of libya, the destruction of iraq, afghanistan, the bombing of Yugoslavia. Wholesome chungus defensive pact!
0
u/TendieRetard Jun 03 '24
Pooty said this was a military action to get rid of nazis before delivering his own blood and soil speech though. So which is it?
4
u/Justhereforstuff123 United States Jun 03 '24
Do I think that's why he did it? No, not really, but nazism does very well exist in Ukraine and very healthily so. I think the talk of denazification was mostly for his home base. Though I'd say almost wiping out the azov banderites is pretty close to that.
0
-2
u/AwesomeBrainPowers Jun 03 '24
In all of your ad hominem & vapid sloganeering, you ignored quite a significant bit of my comment.
Here, I’ll repeat it for you:
…then Putin lost this war the very instant Sweden and Finland joined up, doubling Russia’s border with NATO members.
But it isn’t about that, and any honest, thinking person knows it:
Shortly after the invasion, Kremlin mouthpiece RIA Novosti prematurely published a celebratory "news" story that exposed the Kremlin's motivations for the naked imperialism it obviously is.
This is blatant, imperialistic conquest; it's incredibly uninformed (at best) or risibly dishonest (at worst) to suggest otherwise.
3
u/Justhereforstuff123 United States Jun 03 '24
Russia isn't an imperialist country. War =/= imperialism. Occupation =/= imperialism. Imperialism has pretty specific characteristics, but I'll wait for the person who thinks Genocide in Gaza & destroying the middle east is somehow defensive for NATO to explain Imperialism instead 😁.
But it isn’t about that, and any honest, thinking person knows it:
I don't think any of it is relevant as it doesn't really change the facts of the ground. Putin himself only exists because NATO plunged the Soviet Union into illegal dissolution, and our guy Yeltsin picked Putin as a successor.
Ignore the NED office in Ukraine, ignore the snipers, ignore the president being forced out, ignore the squashing of dissidents, then yeah, Ukraine is a healthy democracy.
2
u/AwesomeBrainPowers Jun 03 '24
I'll wait for the person who thinks Genocide in Gaza & destroying the middle east is somehow defensive
I don’t know who that is, because it certainly isn’t me.
Conquest is the explicit goal of the Kremlin’s voluntary war of aggression: There is no dodging that, and absolutely no amount of regurgitated talking points or vapid sloganeering will change that.
Best of luck with your many and obvious struggles.
→ More replies (0)
21
u/That_Shape_1094 Jun 03 '24
Any peace talks that do not bring Ukraine and Russia in the same room is a sham. Countries that decide to attend such talks are not interested in bringing about peace, but are more interested in ganging up against Russia.
-2
u/TendieRetard Jun 03 '24
yeah, ganging up against the bully brings about peace. It's what happened against the Germans in WWII
1
u/That_Shape_1094 Jun 04 '24
It's what happened against the Germans in WWII
There were allied soldiers dying when fighting the Germans. But right now, do you see these so-called allies dying fighting the Russians?
12
-9
u/PhillNeRD Jun 03 '24
This is all coordinated. The West defending Israel and Ukraine starts spreading the West thin. Then China in the future goes into Taiwan and the West will have to step in. North goes after South Korea as well and once again the West will have to respond. There will also be a war in South America against a US ally. These are intentionally long slow wars that are designed to be very very very expensive for the West
Then there is BRICS.
The temperature in the pot is slowly rising and the frog is too stupid to realize it
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 03 '24
Remember the human & be courteous to others.
Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas. Criticizing arguments is fine, name-calling (including shill/bot accusations) others is not.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Please checkout our other subreddit /r/MultimediaNews, for maps, infographics, v.reddit, & YouTube videos from news organizations.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.