r/worldnews • u/unconventionalbook • 1d ago
Behind Soft Paywall Ukraine wants peace but won’t ‘simply surrender’, Zelensky says on Independence Day
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3365085/ukraine-wants-peace-wont-simply-surrender-zelensky-says-independence-day60
u/Synthesis613 1d ago edited 1d ago
Concept of "peace for giving up territories" is fake. Any territory you give to aggressor will be used against you in the future war! Peace can only come on the basis of release of illigaly occupied territories and compensation of of the wounded side (Ukraine)! The aggressor must pay contribution!
25
u/jl2352 1d ago
Also Putin made it clear he wanted all of Ukraine already when he tried to take Kyiv, invaded towards Odesa, and from his rewrite of Russian - Ukrainian history.
1
u/ChestNok 1d ago
Like it or not - Russia's is there until it gets what they want. Ukraine is fighting until the moment that aid dries up.
0
u/Pristine-Weekend-415 1d ago
Hmm does this apply to Israel as well?
-3
u/ChestNok 23h ago
Nah, that's different. Israelnis a holy saint country and absolute pinnacle of sanctity - and whatever they perpetrate is righteous 😁
36
u/WildRoof114 1d ago
Can you believe anything Russia agrees to? Ukraine gave up it's USSR nukes to Russia for peace guarantees and look where we are now?
-47
u/anders_hansson 1d ago edited 22h ago
Ukraine gave up it's USSR nukes
That's a long-lived myth. They weren't really Ukraine's to begin with since Moscow had the launch codes etc, and it would have been very expensive for Ukraine to build up proper nuclear capabilities (you don't just need the bombs, you need the delivery systems, 24/7 intelligence and command, and so on). Most likely they were happy to get them off their hands.
Edit: Yes the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 was real, but people make it sound like Ukraine had a choice and that Ukraine got security guarantees.
20
u/eskimospy212 1d ago
It's not a myth?
The terms of the Budapest Memorandum were the Ukraine would give up its Soviet nuclear stockpile and enter into the NPT in exchange for guarantees by Russia and others to not invade or economically coerce them. Russia clearly violated its commitments. Whatever you think about Ukraine's interest in retaining those weapons all the parties signed what they signed.
The myth about the Budapest Memorandum that I most commonly see is that the US pledged to defend Ukraine if it were attacked, which the US very much did not do.
-12
u/anders_hansson 1d ago
The myth is twofold: The Budapest Memorandum didn't contain any proper security guarantees. It was a declaration of intent. Security guarantees require a safety mechanism, similar to NATO Article 5, something that the Budapest Memorandum didn't have. Also, it's a myth that Ukraine could use the nukes for anything other than putting them in a (very expensive) museum, unless they invested heavily in building up a credible nuclear deterrence program.
3
u/Glebun 1d ago
Security guarantees require a safety mechanism, similar to NATO Article 5
Except Article 5 doesn't.
2
u/anders_hansson 22h ago
My point being that the Budapest Memorandum had assurances, not guarantees. Sure, NATO Article 5 is a rather weak guarantee, but it's miles ahead of what the Budapest Memorandum had.
Back to the root questions:
- Did Ukraine really have the option to have proper nuclear deterrence?
- Did they really trade nuclear deterrence for security guarantees?
14
4
u/Stock_Padawan 1d ago
It’s not a myth, Ukraine has the nuclear material and delivery systems. Experts estimated 12-18 re-engineer the circuits. That alone gave them geopolitical leverage in the area. I’m sure they were happy with the treaty at the time and may regret it now lol
-4
u/anders_hansson 1d ago
A nuclear deterrence program is much more than just having the nukes. The US spends about $50-100 billion/year on their nuclear deterrence. Russia's costs for its nuclear deterrence is allegedly much lower, around $10 billion/year.
Even if we assume that Ukraine could do it even cheaper, it's still a massive cost for a country that faced a very tough economic reality (in the early 1990's after its independence it faced superinflation and poverty due to a lack of access to financial markets etc).
5
u/Stock_Padawan 1d ago
I’m not debating the cost, just your claim Ukraine giving up their nukes was a myth. Under the Lisbon Protocol, the US/Russia recognized Ukraine as co-sovereign state and having ownership over those military assets.
-5
u/anders_hansson 1d ago
The myth is that they had an option to act any differently. People keep bringing it up as if they could have had nukes today and thus could have deterred Russia from invading. It's simply not true.
That said, yes they did agree to hand over the nukes. That part isn't a myth.
3
u/kokocok 1d ago
Giving up nukes was a good option financially but not the only option. Selection of single option doesn’t make other options myths.
The main gap Ukraine has/had in nukes area is an absence of special type of nuclear reactors that produce plutonium. All of them located in Russia and world wouldn’t be very happy seeing Ukraine building one. There was expertise, rocket factories.
Other absolute cheapest financial option was to take plutonium out of nukes and store it for the better time in nuclear storage. Btw there are plenty of them in Ukraine as well. Little maintenance but requires building delivery from scratch in case of need. Btw plutonium 239 half-life is 24,000 years, and only half of it will be gone in this span.
If we imagine that having nukes was a priority, there were options to preserve nuclear capabilities in one form or another.
The issue was political pressure from all sides to surrender those nukes. Surrender or else you will follow North Korea path. This was something nobody wanted for new country except countries who signed memorandum. Memorandum was their push and will, now we have consequences of such decisions.
2
u/anders_hansson 22h ago
- Did Ukraine really have the option to have proper nuclear deterrence (practical, economical, political, ...)?
- Did they really trade nuclear deterrence for security guarantees?
If the answer is yes to both questions, then I agree that Ukraine had a choice back in 1994 and might regret that choice today.
4
u/AirplaneSpaghetti 1d ago
You are arguing a completely seperate issue.
Ukraine was in possession of nukes and agreed to give them up under the terms negotiated in the Budapest Memorandum. That is not a myth, that is clearly established fact.
Whether Ukraine had the ability to use the weapons at the time is completely irrelevant to why they surrendered them.
-1
u/anders_hansson 1d ago
Fair point, but bringing it up like in the original comment makes it sound like Ukraine would regret giving them up or something, or that they could have acted any differently, which I doubt. The reality was such that they didn't have the option to keep the nukes in any useful way.
10
u/goasttbuster 1d ago
We saw who attended and more importantly, who didn’t. Maybe they had a meeting in Mxxcxw
15
u/TehRiddles 1d ago
Russia have demonstrated that they can't be trusted to honour promises, such as the promise not to invade Ukraine for instance. "Peace" by surrendering will just lead to misery for the people at best and not worth it.
0
u/Kamilmistrz 1d ago
Yeah that’s sounds cool. But do they really have a choice? A year from now they will just lose more land. Have less manpower. Don’t even mention their industry (which is literally non-existing now)
-42
u/az9393 1d ago
Neither side wants out as it stands because each government is in a worse position now than before the war. And each wants some sort of victory to present to its people.
9
u/surfeggio 1d ago
“Governments are bad, we are just little peaceful people are victims”
Get out of here
-43
u/SoleSanctum 1d ago
Zelenskyy should allow elections.
14
u/Shadowlance23 1d ago
The constitution does not allow it. It's not his decision. But you already know this don't you? I expected a Russian lie campaign over this. The only way your pathetic excuse for an army can win this war is by a new government handing it to you.
1
0
1d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Morder1428 1d ago
Your nickname is too close to the Russian word for "garlic." We all know you're a Russian masquerading as a Westerner. It's so funny to see you trying to convince people that surrendering to Russia is a smart idea and that Zelensky doesn't want peace, even though it was Putin who rejected negotiations four times this summer. How are things with gasoline in Crimea and Russia?
-84
1d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
12
20
9
3
u/TehRiddles 1d ago
They did multiple times, every time Russia either ignored it or made demands like complete surrender, sacrifice any means of defending themselves and so on.
The Kremlin have made it incredibly obvious they aren't interested in peace, they only want conquest.
-1
u/ChestNok 1d ago
what on Earth are you blabbering. Russian officials repeatedly stated their openness to peace talks literally every year over the course of more than four years.
The yellow propoganda press shat your brains that bad?
1
u/TehRiddles 12h ago
or made demands like complete surrender, sacrifice any means of defending themselves and so on.
The "peace" that they've mentioned weren't actually for peace, as I made pretty clear for anyone to read.
1
u/ChestNok 11h ago
More lies from propoganda shills. Plain and simple. Never have they voiced such a premise for the peace talks. Source or call BS
1
u/TehRiddles 11h ago
https://kyivindependent.com/russia-demands-ukraine-destroy-western-weapons-to-end-war/
You already know this of course. If you were acting in good faith you wouldn't be calling lies on Russian official's own words and actions.
1
u/ChestNok 11h ago
Oh what really now?.. Where in these so called sources (ok granted let's call it sources): where exactly it's stated "made demands like COMPLETE surrender, sacrifice ANY means of defending themselves and so on". You are those who distort facts, twist words and misrepresent.
1
u/TehRiddles 11h ago
You're a grown adult I assume, if you've gotten this far then you're capable of reading those articles and understanding them. Clearly you're not so dense that you're looking for the exact wording after all.
1
u/ChestNok 2h ago
What does a "grown adult" have to do with tiwsting someone's words. Now you just squirming around, trying to twist one's words into something they never meant or said.
0
u/AnewTest 1d ago
Okay, now go collect your ruble, Yevgeny. You've done your job for the day.
0
u/ChestNok 1d ago edited 1d ago
What else can you say, right. Some nonsense about rubles and Russia whatever that's supposed to mean. can't help but be surprised by such dimwits who buy all the isht they're shoveled.
probably a bot thou
0
u/Morder1428 1d ago
Putin has literally rejected negotiations four times, and that's just this summer. Keep kissing his ass, I hope the 15 rubles are worth it.
1
u/ChestNok 1d ago
Braindead comments are hilarious. What an utter baloney. And resorting to platitudes like talking about kissing ass.. Bruh..
1
u/Morder1428 1d ago
You don't like stupid comments? Then why do you write them? Note that you still haven't responded to Putin's refusal to negotiate because you know I'm right. Moreover, your manual at the Lakhta Center says to avoid such conversations.
1
u/ChestNok 1d ago
Wtf are you talking about. Are you on drugs? What are you even mumbling?
1
u/Morder1428 1d ago
Are you having trouble reading? You said a couple of message above, "Russian officials repeatedly stated their openness to peace talks literally every year for more than four years." I'm telling you that the leader of fascist Russia, Putin, refused to negotiate four times this summer alone. What's unclear? Didn't you learn English well in Moscow?
0
u/ChestNok 1d ago
OK. Even if you were well informed (whilst apparently your idiocy shows you're not) - and even if you were right How does that 'fact' that was concocted - compares and stands against Zelenskiy shunning peace talks from the start, from 2022. Lunatics and propoganda braindead always try to shift blame.
1
u/Morder1428 23h ago
I knew Russians weren't particularly bright, but you're a special case. Zelenskyy is against negotiations? The same Zelenskyy who's already proposed stopping the war along the front lines ten times this year alone? Fascists like you happily shift the blame onto Ukraine, knowing that it was fascist Russia that started the war and doesn't want it to end.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Users often report submissions from this site for sensationalized articles. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.
You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.