Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin – the Russian mercenary leader whose plane crashed weeks after he led a mutiny against Moscow’s military leadership – shows what happens when people make deals with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

As Ukraine’s counteroffensive moves into a fourth month, with only modest gains to show so far, Zelensky told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria he rejected suggestions it was time to negotiate peace with the Kremlin.

“When you want to have a compromise or a dialogue with somebody, you cannot do it with a liar,” Volodymyr Zelensky said.

    • teft@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      68
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      If someone invades your country and kills your countrymen you don’t negotiate with them. You tell them to get the fuck out or we’ll kill every one of you motherfuckers that decides to continue being on our land. Why? You going to advocate being like Chamberlain? Or Quisling? What do you suggest someone does if their country is invaded?

        • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          They are, mate. You act like the West is standing behind Ukraine threatening to shoot anyone that retreats. We’re sending em guns and money, if they wanted to stop fighting they could make that decision tomorrow.

          • Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            You haven’t seen the video of the Ukrainian lieutenant throwing a grenade into the trench of the Ukrainian soldiers who disobeyed an order to charge the front. Or the daylight kidnappings of Ukrainian citizens by the recruitment officers.

      • Count042@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        How do you show you’ve never heard of the war of the triple alliance or of Paraguay, without saying war of the triple alliance or Paraguay.

          • Count042@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sorry, I was on a long canoe trip without internet access.

            It is specific for a reason.

            It feels good to say that you will support a country that wishes to fight to its last inhabitants. It sounds good. It sounds macho. Very few people actually think about the actual consequences to a policy like that.

            But, we have a real life example, and it is horrible beyond description. Sometimes, if you can make people see the horror and blood of a macho pithy saying, maybe you can get them to see the actual cost of that macho pithy saying.

            Sometimes, sadly, giving up is the right thing to do.

            • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sometimes, sadly, giving up is the right thing to do.

              I get it, but if you are just trying to make the point that, if a country thinks they’ll eventually lose, it’s better for everyone if they give up quickly … then this historical example doesn’t seem relevant.

              Given that Ukraine already gave up quickly once (in Crimea) and that Russia simply waited until it was convenient to invade them again, I’m sure you can understand why Ukrainians think it’s necessary to fight this one out.

              Now, the war of the Triple Alliance is often held up as an example of how a minority of belligerents can create massive devastation by continuing a guerilla war after losing the conventional war; if Ukraine seems in danger of losing the conventional war, I’ll admit it’s a relevant parallel, otherwise it isn’t terribly relevant.

      • Hyperreality@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        34
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you think Russia will unconditionally surrender and stop fighting when Ukraine reaches the Russian border?

          • Hyperreality@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            25
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t think Ukraine is about to conquer Russia or capture Moscow, even if they wanted to or if we want them to.

            Do you think Russia will unconditionally surrender and stop fighting when Ukraine reaches the Russian border?

            • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              22
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have no idea. Even if they don’t, Ukraine just has to defend their territory, which they have proven more than capable of.

              The only one party that can end this conflict is the aggressor.

              • Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                1 year ago

                The only thing they’ve proven is that the West really wanted to get rid of their old weapon stock.

            • SlopppyEngineer@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              More likely there will simply be no peace and they’ll technically stay at war, with a huge minefield in between the two countries, until one of them runs out of money.

            • Send_me_nude_girls@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              A safety buffer zone of a few kilometers, on the Russian side, past the Ukrainian country, sounds reasonable. Depending on how far they still keep shooting.

      • Hyperreality@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        The UK negotiated with the IRA.

        The US negotiated with the Japanese.

        The allies negotiated with the Nazis.

        • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m pretty sure the negotiations consisted on total surrender and heavy controls of power in the three cases, which Zelenskyy agrees on. Just giving more territories to Russia is not what they want. That would only mean a new offensive in a few years.

          • Hyperreality@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            In other words, even Zelensky knows there’ll have to be negotiations somewhere down the line.

            It’s just a question of when and under which circumstances.

            It’s in Ukraine and Europe’s interests, that these negotiations occur when Russia has been pushed back to the border. Otherwise they’ll have been rewarded for their military adventurism.

            And obviously Russia can’t be trusted, so the moment a cease fire is signed, it’s imperative that Ukraine gets defacto NATO membership (or something approaching it) and is armed to the teeth.

            • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They had been open to negotiations in the past, and surely are open now, but the first step is for Russia to get the fuck off Ukraine and stop the aggression. It’s not a negotiation of your have a knife to your neck.

        • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m fine with the Japanese solution, which Russian cities should we delete?

          The German solution seems awfully similar.

          • triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I hope the ghosts of hundreds of thousands of murdered Japanese civilians haunt you for the rest of your life. thank fuck even the post-1945 US government isn’t as bloodthirsty for war crimes as you are

            • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              They didn’t surrender, they wouldn’t surrender, the alternative of murdering them slowly by starvation wasn’t magically better.

              Sometimes you just have to explain how hopeless things are.

              • triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                what if we had records of contemporary US top military leaders saying the exact opposite, would you stop cheerleading for mass slaughter then?

                because, in an amazing coincidence…

                While a majority of Americans may not be familiar with this history, the National Museum of the U.S. Navy in Washington, D.C., states unambiguously on a plaque with its atomic bomb exhibit: “The vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military. However, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria … changed their minds.”…

                Seven of the United States’ eight five-star Army and Navy officers in 1945 agreed with the Navy’s vitriolic assessment. Generals Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Henry “Hap” Arnold and Admirals William Leahy, Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, and William Halsey are on record stating that the atomic bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both.

                No one was more impassioned in his condemnation than Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff. He wrote in his memoir “that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender …. In being the first to use it we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

                MacArthur thought the use of atomic bombs was inexcusable. He later wrote to former President Hoover that if Truman had followed Hoover’s “wise and statesmanlike” advice to modify its surrender terms and tell the Japanese they could keep their emperor, “the Japanese would have accepted it and gladly I have no doubt.”

                Before the bombings, Eisenhower had urged at Potsdam, “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

                https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-anniversary-japan-atomic-bombs

          • kd637_mi@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I really don’t like how often I see people ok with the idea of nuclear war. I like Fallout as much as the next person but I don’t think it’s an accurate representation of nuclear apocalypse.

          • Hyperreality@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m fine with winning the lottery. That isn’t likely either.

            Ukraine doesn’t have nukes, so the Japanese solution is off the table.

            Ukraine isn’t about to conquer Moscow, so the German solution isn’t feasible either.

            • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              North Korea has nukes, you’re honestly telling me ukraine, the ones who figured it out in the soviet union, can’t figure it out too?

              Ukraine is the smart remnant of the soviet union, Russia needs to surrender out of sheer terror.

            • wanderingmagus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, but the US does. I, for one, as an SSBN sailor, am ready and willing to set condition 1SQ for Strategic nuclear launch at any time. Slava Ukraini, HOOYAH AMERICA. Kill the Bear!

        • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The US negotiated with the Japanese.

          The allies negotiated with the Nazis.

          You know both these groups surrendered unconditionally, right?

          • Hyperreality@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes. The terms were harsh, but ultimately both parties agreed to them. A negotiated settlement.

            Note also how the reality is slightly more nuanced. For example, Hirohito remained in power and all members of the Imperial House were spared criminal prosecution. That was an unfortunate but necessary compromise. If the world was fair, they’d have hanged them all, just like much of the Nazi establishment.

            This also why at one point Japanese officials, basing themselves on the Potsdam Declaration, argued to MacArthur that Japan’s surrender had in fact been contractual and conditional. Obviously he told them to go fuck themselves, and because the country was by now occupied, there wasn’t exactly much they could do about it.

            It’s unfortunate, but this is almost certainly what will happen with Russia. A ceasefire will be agreed under conditions both parties accept. The better Ukraine does, the worse the conditions will be that Russia is forced to accept. With a bit of luck, the conditions will be so bad that Putin falls out of a window and is replaced with someone slightly more sane.

            Once the ink is dry, the west will hopefully arm Ukraine to the gills, perhaps institute a no fly zone, give them NATO membership or something approaching it, etc. etc.

            But before that happens there will still need to agree to a ceasefire, hence all wars end with a negotiated settlement, unless you engage in genocide.

    • lonke@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Either you give them land from which they can prepare their next attack or you show them that they’re unable to take and hold land. So yeah. Pretty much.

    • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Literally yes. If they capitulate it’s only a matter of time before Putin tries again, either by fomenting a revolution and installing another pro-Russia dictator, or restarting the war. This is a fight for the very survival of Ukraine.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean at the current pace it’s just all or all, nothing doesn’t seem possible anymore unless something big happens.