A decision to negotiate over the heads of the Ukrainians would reveal just how Trump sees Ukraine and Europe.
  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    1045·
    4 days ago

    Ukraine wasn’t invited to the decision to fight a proxy war either, or have its government overthrown in the Maidan Coup. And when they attempted peace talks before, their western handlers ordered them to keep fighting.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      193·
      4 days ago

      Ukrainians: Fight to defend their country from Russian attack

      Western countries who don’t like what Russia is doing help Ukrainians

      Some silly person online: YOU’RE FIGHTING AN AMERICAN PROXY WAR

      They’re just trying to defend their country.

      And when they attempted peace talks before, their western handlers ordered them to keep fighting.

      What’s this referring to?

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          121·
          4 days ago

          Ahh. The old hasbara strategy of pretending nothing happened before that. Nice.

          I don’t know what that means tbh.

          Link

          The article and the relevant section from Wikipedia both describe how the talks failed on multiple issues, with one part being the refusal of giving security guarantees.

          Speaking further and explaining Kyiv’s refusal to accept the proposal, Arakhamia said that it would require a constitutional change, given that Ukraine’s Constitution states its intention to become a NATO member.

          Additionally, he emphasized a lack of trust in the Russian position.

          “There is no, and there was no, trust in the Russians that they would do it. That could only be done if there were security guarantees.”

          Arahamiya clarified that signing such an agreement without guarantees would have left Ukraine vulnerable to a second incursion.

          The idea that a Boris Johnson (of all people) saying “shouldn’t sign anything with them at all – and let’s just fight” was their “Western handlers ordering them to fight” is pretty funny.

          • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
            120·
            4 days ago

            So you believe the Ukrainian officials confirming this are lying?

            The Wikipedia entries are maintained by western propagandists. I wouldn’t put much faith in the credibility.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              121·
              4 days ago

              I don’t know who Ukrainian official you mean, other than that I quoted same person as your article did (Arahamiya/Arakhamia). In those links he isn’t confirming your take that “Boris Johnson (of all people) saying “shouldn’t sign anything with them at all – and let’s just fight” was their “Western handlers ordering them to fight””.

              The Wikipedia article has links to their sources (news articles) who come back to the same things said in your linked article (from The European Conservative). It’s just that the article you linked gives a lot more weight (an outright claim of being forced) to the Boris episode than many other sources or from what I’ve seen, Arahamiya/Arakhamia (their source) does himself. He doesn’t seem to have said what the title of your article (about being forced) claims. Or if he did, they didn’t quote that part.

              • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
                116·
                4 days ago

                The Wikipedia entry referencing news articles doesn’t mean much if the articles themselves are pushing western propaganda. Especially considering how many news agencies are (or were) on the payroll of USAID, I wouldn’t expect to see them challenge the NATO narrative.

                Giving more weight to Wikipedia articles than Ukrainian officials is definitely… an interesting choice.

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  121·
                  4 days ago

                  They’re all referencing the same interview and the same quotes from the same person… None of them seems to disagree on what he said as such. He just literally doesn’t in any of the quoted parts in any of the articles linked claim or confirm what your news article claimed it confirms, they’re just making a claim of their own on the meaning of his words and their own opinion. That’s the difference.

                  Hell, you linked to The European Conservative which is an outright even in the name politically biased news source. But it’s the same quotes on all of them, so that part doesn’t matter since the actual interview is there.

                  Giving more weight to Wikipedia articles than Ukrainian officials is definitely… an interesting choice.

                  It’s the same exact official that’s being quoted in all of the news articles. How are you not getting this… The official being quoted just doesn’t say what you claimed he did. You saw Wikipedia and thought that’s your way out of your claim but missed the whole thing of it being literally the same person with everyone referencing literally the same interview lol.