I believe that the mineral deal had a security guarantee from the U.S. "at some future date" like the "infrastructure plan" still on hold for 8 years, meaning empty. Look at all the "cancellations" of Biden programs in one month. One side should not pay in advance while the other is free to renege.
Perhaps European leaders filled that vacuum.
Or perhaps it's a recalibration given a two-front war.
I don’t think anyone can be honest about a live negotiation in public. It’s all going to happen behind closed doors. But realistically, what will happen is that Russia will just formally gain the territories it took over in 2014 after the coup in Ukraine that overthrew Yanukovych. This is not a bad outcome for stability in the region, to be honest - those areas have historically been more Russia-aligned and voted for Yanukovych. It’s not clear why they should be in Ukraine if the coup can just erase their democratic selection.
Yanukovych won by promising to sign the EU accession treaty. It wasn't until Putin blackmailed him and the Europeans wouldn't backfill that he was forced to go back on it leading to the maidan protests.
That may be true but the democratic process was not followed in the end. If you look at the previous election, regions from Luhansk to Crimea were strong supporters of Yanukovych. Those people basically lost their vote as a result of the Maidan revolution / protest / coup / whatever. Should they be required to remain in Ukraine, assuming they don’t want to?
I’m interested in learning more about what you know regarding the Putin blackbail and Europe backfill though - got any sources?
They "lost their vote"? Yanukovych fled, that was his choice. It also ignores the donbas voters who voted for him because of the EU treaty. And they held elections after in which donbas votes counted the same as everyone else. Donbas also voted for Ukraine independence from the Soviet union in the 90s.
Putin demanded yanukovych cancel the EU treaty and instead sign a treaty with Russia. He threatened to stop selling Ukraine gas below market rate. This is the same way he controls lukashenko. Yanukovych went to the Europeans and begged them to make up what Ukraine would lose paying market rate but they refused. So he was forced to cancel the EU treaty which he didn't want to do because he knew what would happen. Rock and a hard place. He was corrupt but not stupid.
>Yanukovych stood for economic modernisation, greater economic ties with the EU, and military non-alignment.
>In November 2013, Yanukovych suddenly withdrew from signing an association agreement with the EU, amidst economic pressure from Russia.
Didn’t he flee because he was at risk of harm? That still doesn’t remove him from the presidency. There’s a process for that which wasn’t followed - the vote isn’t a substitute.
Yanukovych fled because even his own party turned on him after police snipers killed over a hundred people. Instead of securing a political deal with other parties to safeguard his future (as he had hoped), he faced the possibility of arrest and criminal prosecution. So he just ran away before it could happen, left Ukraine for Russia and never returned.
Ukraine's parliament assembled and unanimously scheduled a snap presidential election, which was held a few months later. The Ukrainian people subsequently elected a new president.
This is a bit disingenuous. Ukraine was never against a peace deal, and its position hasn't changed. What's changed is that the US is trying to sell them out to Russia, and that's something that Ukraine isn't going to, and shouldn't, accept.
What would the US do if it were in Ukraine's position? It certainly wouldn't go along with some other power telling it that it has to lose.
> This is what strong American leadership gets you, get used to it.
I see no strong American leadership here. I see a weak president throwing a hissy fit because Zelensky wasn't willing to sufficiently kneel down and kiss Trump's ass. Zelensky is the strong leader here.
"I see no strong American leadership here. I see a weak president throwing a hissy fit because Zelensky wasn't willing to sufficiently kneel down and kiss Trump's ass. Zelensky is the strong leader here."
Are you serious? Powerful people know their place and Zelensky definitely didn't know his. Trump only threw a 'hissy fit' as you claim, because Zelensky started making demands, when he should be thanking the US for the billions of dollars we already poured into his country. Definitely a sign of a weak leader.
Another sign is completely getting rid of fair and Democratic elections and forcing men at gun point to fight in a war where they will most likely get killed.
Only one person on that stage did this.
It's funny, none of the Zelensky supporters will mention this, even though you've accused Trump of wanting to get rid of elections for years.
"What would the US do if it were in Ukraine's position? It certainly wouldn't go along with some other power telling it that it has to lose."
Yes, entirely reasonable and necessary ones (a security guarantee). He only did it in public because Trump had just publicly made false statements that were intended to undercut those. That's what a strong leader does: stands up for his nation when necessary.
> he should be thanking the US for the billions of dollars we already poured into his country.
Zelensky has been thanking the US continuously all along. There's no shortage of expressions of gratitude here. What got Trump angry was that Zelensky wasn't grovelling to Trump personally. That has nothing to do with the US and everything to do with Trump's weakness and lack of character. Trump is not the US.
> you've accused Trump of wanting to get rid of elections for years.
I have done no such thing.
> They wouldn't bite the hand that feeds them.
Zelensky did no such thing, but I could absolutely see Trump doing so.
Isn't Zelensky always ready to negotiate peace? The problem is that Russia isn't. Not without so many strings attached that Ukraine actually finds it more advantageous to continue fighting.
Right. We've already negotiated peace in Ukraine, and the issue is that it is not respected by Ukraine's adversaries. "Strong leadership" means lasting peace.
Nobody is going to win a Nobel prize for being a puppet of the Russian Federation. With respect to the Budapest memorandum, this is organized harassment, not negotiations.
This comes on the heels of meetings with European leaders, which poses two possibilities:
1 - European leaders are talking the talk but afraid of actually walking the walk with respect to Russia, even despite Putin being drastically weakened over the last two years, which does not bode well at all.
We have been hearing much in recent years about the (dismal) state of readiness within the US military. Given reliance on the US for defense, it is entirely plausible the state of European militaries is even worse. Russia and Iran are not going to stop their push; we need a strong Europe to prevent a nightmare scenario.
2 - It is also possible that Zelensky actually was being overly pushy, asking for too much, reneging on deals, exploiting media, etc. and European countries chose to curb discussions as well, forcing him to come back to the table with the US. This tracks with past difficulties the Biden administration faced in talks with Zelensky[A] and aligns with the narrative that Trump has been pushing in recent days.
This, honestly, would be an even worse scenario. That would somehow place Zelensky _below_ Trump in reasonable-ness and diplomatic maturity, which is an already impossibly low bar. This of course does not bode well for peace talks. Regardless of political stance I think we can all agree the current West is not ready for WW3 to start right away.
I feel this is slightly less likely as it seems Zelensky is coming back to the table on his own imperative.
1 Is definitely a factor, after all these are the same people who've been crowing about their sacrifice and bravery in cutting off Russian oil and gas, despite not actually doing any such thing. https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/eu-imports-of-russ...
Unless you really believe that one month of Trump is all it takes for the EU to suddenly take their own defense seriously, and damn the political consequences when the costs hit.
2 I don't think so, I believe he's understandably desperate for security guarantees that go further than the paper ones Russia blew past in 2014 and 2022. Sadly I think he isn't getting them, and between the fiction of European unity and the reality of economic partnership with the US, the latter is more likely to lead to meaningful security.
Perhaps European leaders filled that vacuum.
Or perhaps it's a recalibration given a two-front war.
reply