Zelensky dismisses compromise with Putin, pointing to Prigozhin's death | CNN
www.cnn.com
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.

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.

  • Hyperreality@kbin.social
    49·
    1 year ago

    The UK negotiated with the IRA.

    The US negotiated with the Japanese.

    The allies negotiated with the Nazis.

    • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
      73·
      1 year ago

      I’m fine with the Japanese solution, which Russian cities should we delete?

      The German solution seems awfully similar.

      • Hyperreality@kbin.social
        21·
        1 year ago

        I’m fine with winning the lottery. That isn’t likely either.

        Ukraine doesn’t have nukes, so the Japanese solution is off the table.

        Ukraine isn’t about to conquer Moscow, so the German solution isn’t feasible either.

        • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
          21·
          1 year ago

          North Korea has nukes, you’re honestly telling me ukraine, the ones who figured it out in the soviet union, can’t figure it out too?

          Ukraine is the smart remnant of the soviet union, Russia needs to surrender out of sheer terror.

        • wanderingmagus@lemm.ee
          02·
          1 year ago

          No, but the US does. I, for one, as an SSBN sailor, am ready and willing to set condition 1SQ for Strategic nuclear launch at any time. Slava Ukraini, HOOYAH AMERICA. Kill the Bear!

      • kd637_mi@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        01·
        1 year ago

        I really don’t like how often I see people ok with the idea of nuclear war. I like Fallout as much as the next person but I don’t think it’s an accurate representation of nuclear apocalypse.

      • triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml
        01·
        1 year ago

        I hope the ghosts of hundreds of thousands of murdered Japanese civilians haunt you for the rest of your life. thank fuck even the post-1945 US government isn’t as bloodthirsty for war crimes as you are

        • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
          0·
          1 year ago

          They didn’t surrender, they wouldn’t surrender, the alternative of murdering them slowly by starvation wasn’t magically better.

          Sometimes you just have to explain how hopeless things are.

          • triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml
            11·
            1 year ago

            what if we had records of contemporary US top military leaders saying the exact opposite, would you stop cheerleading for mass slaughter then?

            because, in an amazing coincidence…

            While a majority of Americans may not be familiar with this history, the National Museum of the U.S. Navy in Washington, D.C., states unambiguously on a plaque with its atomic bomb exhibit: “The vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military. However, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria … changed their minds.”…

            Seven of the United States’ eight five-star Army and Navy officers in 1945 agreed with the Navy’s vitriolic assessment. Generals Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Henry “Hap” Arnold and Admirals William Leahy, Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, and William Halsey are on record stating that the atomic bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both.

            No one was more impassioned in his condemnation than Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff. He wrote in his memoir “that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender …. In being the first to use it we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

            MacArthur thought the use of atomic bombs was inexcusable. He later wrote to former President Hoover that if Truman had followed Hoover’s “wise and statesmanlike” advice to modify its surrender terms and tell the Japanese they could keep their emperor, “the Japanese would have accepted it and gladly I have no doubt.”

            Before the bombings, Eisenhower had urged at Potsdam, “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

            https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-anniversary-japan-atomic-bombs

    • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
      0·
      1 year ago

      I’m pretty sure the negotiations consisted on total surrender and heavy controls of power in the three cases, which Zelenskyy agrees on. Just giving more territories to Russia is not what they want. That would only mean a new offensive in a few years.

      • Hyperreality@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        In other words, even Zelensky knows there’ll have to be negotiations somewhere down the line.

        It’s just a question of when and under which circumstances.

        It’s in Ukraine and Europe’s interests, that these negotiations occur when Russia has been pushed back to the border. Otherwise they’ll have been rewarded for their military adventurism.

        And obviously Russia can’t be trusted, so the moment a cease fire is signed, it’s imperative that Ukraine gets defacto NATO membership (or something approaching it) and is armed to the teeth.