- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Monday that Ukraine would have to make concessions over land that Russia had taken since 2014 as part of any agreement to end the war.
Mr. Rubio spoke as he was flying to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for talks with senior Ukrainian officials, and 10 days after a contentious White House meeting between President Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky. The Trump administration halted military aid to Ukraine after the blowup, which centered on Mr. Trump’s refusal to include any security guarantees in a proposed deal involving Ukraine’s natural resources.
You must log in or register to comment.
Okay. Us Europeans want to cede Florida.
Come on now, Rubio. You’re the one who opened up your big mouth.
Please take Florida.
The actual deterrent here being that Putin realizes he has to govern Florida and backs off Ukraine entirely.
Does this shithead hold his cards face out when he plays poker?
Russia must be quite desperate to put that much pressure on them
I am completely honest, this is an open question, why do we care what his opinion is? Does he hold any real power in this?
Rubio is a Russian asset
Most of our government seems to be.
Removed by mod
get lost troll.
That sounds like Russia. Took 30 years to do something we did in less time
Bin Laden defeated our freedom and Putin defeated our democracy.
We’re such a pathetic nation of pussies. Home of the brave has to be the most ridiculous line in any anthem ever.
As Tywin Lannister said “Any man who must say, “I am the King”, is no true king.”
Any man who goes around telling everyone they’re brave, probably isn’t brave. In fact it’s incredibly cringe.
A cringe country full of cringe people who say one thing but do another. Claim to stand for freedom, democracy, and liberty whilst oppressing all of those things both at home and abroad.
Land of the cowards.
Bin Laden and Putin didn’t do these things. They precipitated a situation wherein we did them ourselves.
Removed by mod
I propose Ukraine cede Kentucky to the Russians. Or maybe one of the Carolinas, I don’t think the US really needs two of them.
As a resident of one of those Carolinas: agreed.
So basically they (putin and trump) want more than 2022 borders. And let me guess, they also want sanctions eased and elections to install a pro-putin government? Ukraine should not make any deals with the US. The US admin is the enemy within and the enemy of democracy.
The ceasefire is just a step to get to the sanctions and elections demands. And once they have a “reason” to force those things then russia is set to continue their forever-war.The only territory that Ukraine has to cede is Kursk
Came to make the same comment. There can be concessions on both sides.
They I think almost kicked out of there.
Unfortunately do the Trump holding back U.S. intelligence Russia mad huge gains in Kursk.
No, it must not. If someone breaks into your house, is he allowed to keep the loot?
Fuckhead rubio needs to pull his head out of Putin’s ass even if there is room in it for both him and the orange suppository
Who?
We don’t negotiate with terrorists my ass
MAGA is a terrorist organization. Their whole missguided ideology of “ruling by strength” is just another way of saying ruling by fear. Using fear/intimidation for a political outcome is by definition terrorism. If someone says it has to be illegal (not true) we can also show the number of arrests and violations of peoples legal rights occuring all over the U.S. Breaking laws pertaining to 1st amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 8th amendment, 9th amendment, 10th amendment, 14th amendment, 15th amendment, and the outright breaking of the law of the land (constitution) by overriding the legislature, which was the only thing keeping the U.S. a Republic.
The U.S. is negotiating with terrorists every day
Imagine a hypothetical scenario in which Mexico invades the United States, takes complete control over the state of New Mexico, and right in the middle of the conflict Great Britain says “the war needs to end”, drafts a ceasefire proposal that allows them take control of half of the country’s natural resources, and offers no security guarantees in the event that Mexico decides to attack again. If you refuse, the British will stop sending military aid to help you continue fighting. Oh, and Mexico gets to keep New Mexico.
Who in their right fucking mind thinks that this is a good deal? Any sensible person would rather continue fighting than give up their advantage for some flimsy ceasefire that won’t stand up to an invader hellbent on conquest.
And that’s after Mexico violated a non-aggression pact and conquered Arizona.
Removed by mod
I’m sure if you go far enough back in time you could say that anyone in control of any particular swathe of land stole it from somebody else. Past wrongs committed are not a valid casus belli for modern wars of aggression or land grabs.
Regardless, your contrarianism doesn’t change the fact that Mexico surrendered that territory to us after the Mexican-American war. Legally, it belongs to the United States after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which redrew the border based on the path of the Rio Grande.
Lol. Remember when a bunch of assholes voted 3rd party or didn’t vote because they were upset with Democrat’s handling of foreign affairs?
Clown country.
Do you remember when the Biden Harris administration provided military, financial and diplomatic support for a genocide that lead to hundred of thousands of casualties? No wonder people didn’t want to vote for them.
I’d do it again, rather get expropriated and deported from this micky mouse country than use what little political input I have to endorse a genocide
I think the point here is that, rather than endorse a genocide, you endorsed 2 genocides, and everything else that this administration does. I get that even one genocide is too much, but for that one you could be calling your representative and writing letters and doing whatever else you can to people who might care about those actions.
What do you mean 2 genocides?
you could be calling your representative and writing letters and doing whatever else you can to people who might care about those actions.
my representatives are Democrats, they didn’t care
you endorsed 2 genocides
by lying about Bidens nonfunctioning brain Democrats created this situation. my vote had zero impact
Removed by mod
both stein and rfk got around 800+k votes. though i suspect many of them R voters on the fence.
That’s not a good example, the US does not rely on the UK to defend itself.
It’s a hypothetical scenario. I could think of some better examples if you really wanted, but that’s the most salient one I could think of off of the top of my head, because you know if the United States was attacked, we would expect the international community to fall behind our right to defend ourselves from any and all threats to our sovereignty.
I don’t see why things should be any different when considering Ukraine’s position.
The scenario just has nothing to do with the current situation in Ukraine. Of course Ukraine has the right to defend itself, nobody is saying otherwise.
Of course Ukraine has the right to defend itself, nobody is saying otherwise.
Article headline: “Ukraine Must Cede Territory in Any Peace Deal, Rubio Says”
Can’t exactly defend yourself when the people trying to broker peace on your behalf are forcing you to capitulate.
To that point, lets be real, even the united states doesnt really care about new mexico. Crimea in this argument has actual economic value.
Honestly any square foot of what russia has stolen from Ukraine has so much more economic value in comparison to new mexico, its hardly a realistic comparison.
I get what you are saying. But taos vs a warm water sea port is such an insane comparison. Its so much worse. Albuquerque? Let em have it. Santa fe? Please.
You’re looking too far into the details. The value of the territory is irrelevant for this hypothetical scenario. But I’ve been catching a lot of flak in the comments for it, so you know what? I’ll humor you, let’s change the formula.
Let’s say tomorrow, Russia announces that because they feel that they were cheated in 1867, they are refusing to recognize the sale of the Alaska territory to the United States and are reestablishing their control over the land as it’s sole owner. They send an invasion force and they capture the land in a swift blitzkrieg-style assault, the United States is caught completely by surprise.
Now, the United States fights, but we can’t really conduct ground operations without the support of Canada. They are our not just our neighbors, but our staunchest allies in this fight. However, a new Prime Minister is sworn in and they suddenly decide to take a massive shift in foreign policy, and try to broker a “peace deal” between Russia and the USA in which we agree to sign over the rights to future drilling operations to Canada in exchange for a ceasefire from Russia, but Russia gets to keep Alaska since they occupy it now anyway. Refusal means Canada pulls their support, forbids US soldiers from operating in Canadian waters or on Canadian soil, and conducting operations in the occupied Alaskan territory becomes virtually impossible. And, let’s not forget, no security agreements even if we do sign the agreement. So, if Russia decides to attack Hawaii or California next, nobody will be compelled to aid us.
Is that a better comparison? Alaska has massive economic and strategic value, so there’s a good reason for Russia to want it. They’ve been regretting ever selling it to us in the first place.
I mean im an adult that can contextualize the geopolitical reasononing behind why this is a bad deal without relying on heavy handed amerocentric hypotheticals.
To be clear, I never disagreed with your point. I just think that your comparison was dumb. And honestly, using alaska is even worse.
I dont know why you need a comparison in the first place. You already have the actual event to look at. Its in eastern europe. And they are in a war.
I dont know why you need a comparison in the first place.
Evidently, there are a LOT of people who don’t seem to understand just why the deal was so bad to begin with. Not you, of course, but some other comments in these Ukraine threads are either woefully uninformed or intentionally being obtuse about acknowledging facts.
And sorry about it being a series of Amerocentric examples, especially here in World News where it’s probably a bit taboo or tone deaf, but suffice to say it seems like the primary culprit behind much the willful ignorance are Americans with a narrow understanding of foreign affairs. I’m also just sticking to what I know so I don’t embarrass myself with my terrible geography.
Of course the United States cares about Mexico. New Mexico’s GDP is about 15 times higher than Crimea’s.
Maybe the US could give New Mexico to Russia in place of Crimea.
De facto yes, but not in law they don’t - no
