Speaking in Munich, Volodymyr Zelenskyy also called for a clear date for his country to be allowed to join the EU
Ukraine wants security guarantees for a minimum of 20 years from the US before it can sign a peace deal with dignity, Volodymyr Zelenskyy said ahead of talks with Russia and the US scheduled for next week.
Speaking in Munich on Saturday, he also called for a clear date for Ukraine to be allowed to join the EU. Some EU officials have put the date as early as 2027.
Speaking to the annual Munich security summit, Ukraine’s president said he hoped “the trilateral meetings next week will be serious, substantive, helpful for all of us but, honestly, sometimes it feels like the sides are talking about completely different things”.
“The Americans often return to the topic of concessions and too often those concessions are discussed only in the context of Ukraine, not Russia,” he added.
23 Comments
vpol@feddit.uk · 115 pts · 176d
I wouldn’t trust anything coming out of the US government’s mouth. Until pedo ring ruling the country is gone.
Tja@programming.dev · 53 pts · 176d
The security guarantees won't be worth the paper they are written on.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 12 pts · 175d
Didn't the US give Ukraine security guarantees in 1994?
What happened to those 20 years later?
Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 175d
No guarantees were given, just non binding security assurances, not that the US government actually gives a fuck about laws or treaties
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 8 pts · 175d
If we have to get into the weeds of the differences between "guarantees" and "assurances," the country in question (the US) is not a trustworthy ally.
Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 175d
The US is not trustworthy.
When you are talking about legal documents(like a treaty), the language matters immensely. It's literally the reason lawyers exist.
The difference between a guaranty and and assurance should have let the Ukrainian government know the US government was never planning on helping fight Russia.
Tja@programming.dev · 1 pts · 175d
Not really, unfortunately, here's my previous comment about it:
https://programming.dev/comment/22199272
SARGE@startrek.website · 40 pts · 175d
dev_null@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 175d
FYI, it's "in 5 years, let alone 15"
village604@adultswim.fan · 12 pts · 175d
Especially since we ignored the last guarantee of protection we gave them.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 2 pts · 175d
Even then ... 20 years is a long time. Who's to say the US won't elect another Russian-puppet pedo within that time?
ProfThadBach@lemmy.world · 44 pts · 176d
Tja@programming.dev · 17 pts · 176d
Not true. I thought so too, but apparently it was a guarantee to:
respect Ukraine's territory (which Russia vialoted, the US didn't)
bring any violations to the UN security council (which was done, but with Russia having veto power, useless)
That being said, I agree that any treaty with the US is absolutely worthless, we can ask Greenland about that.
SARGE@startrek.website · 9 pts · 175d
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 2 pts · 175d
Yeah... I don't really want to see US infantry on the ground in Ukraine, but I would have really liked to see the US enforce a no-fly zone over contested areas and maybe also bomb the shit out of Russian forces in Ukraine from the air.
Hitting targets inside Russia could be politically nonviable, as it probably violates some international laws, but with Ukraine's permission, they could absolutely hit anything they wanted inside Ukrainian territory.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 5 pts · 175d
Yep. If you need confirmation, just ask any Native American.
fortnitefinn@sh.itjust.works · 31 pts · 175d
Didn't NATO/US/Western countries give security guarantees to Ukraine for Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal?
How did that turn out?
Lewo@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 175d
The Budapest Memorandum was initially signed by Ukarine, Russia, United States and United Kingdom, "assuring" the security of Ukraine in exchange for giving up their nuclear arsenal. But afaik it doesn't really imply any legal obligations. I assume that the new agreement would involve more concrete conditions and responsibilities.
village604@adultswim.fan · 8 pts · 175d
Yes it does. An assurance is synonymous to guarantee in legal terms.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 4 pts · 175d
And what happens when (not if) the Trump administration (or some even worse successor) ignores those concrete conditions and responsibilities? Is Ukraine going to sue the USA in international court while they're being overrun?
There's no 'security guarantee' out there anymore that could possibly be worth the paper it's written on.
If I were in charge of Ukraine right now, I'd be looking for 'security guarantees' in the form of mutual defense pacts with other countries in the region that could be in a similar situation. Poland, Finland, etc. Those might actually have your back, since they know that they're next if you fall.
DABDA@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 21 pts · 175d
rayyy@piefed.social · 13 pts · 176d
Like the last "security" agreement with Russia? Russia go home agreement or die.
D_C@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 175d
I wouldn't trust the us government to tie my shoes, let alone guarantee anything. And I mean anything at all.
They can't be trusted. Full stop. The end.
redditmademedoit@piefed.zip · 8 pts · 175d
The US is walking a fine line between undermining any given security guarantees to the point of being worthless, cheap talk and sounding "woke" by offering any.
CptOblivius@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 175d
We already agreed to that when Ukraine gave up the nucs. Look what that did, nothing. Why would they try again?
zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -3 pts · 175d
EU is not going to like the fact that Ukraine wants to join the EU this quickly. Corruption is still a massive issue and because of the war, the Euro will lose value, as billions will be pumped in that country.