Veraticus comments on Zelensky dismisses compromise with Putin, pointing to Prigozhin’s death

Zelensky dismisses compromise with Putin, pointing to Prigozhin’s death (www.cnn.com)

submitted 3 years ago by deconstruct@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

591 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 17 points 3 years ago (4 children)

This isn't hypocrisy or a double standard. Your argument is unironically "because America did bad things we must let bad things happen everywhere."

No one here is saying America smells like roses. Does that mean we can't try to do good? Must we stand idle and let Ukrainians die when we could help them?

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] WuTang@lemmy.ninja -3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

/u/sndmn@lemmy.ca

Russia can’t be accepted back into the international community

Veraticus

our argument is unironically “because America did bad things we must let bad things happen everywhere.”

NO, idiot (sorry, sometime, let's call a cat, a cat). Your "community" would have no sense and credibility as they still have one of the biggest warmonger at their table. This is not a stupid "whataboutism" argument that you are all blindly paroting! So sndmn@lemmy.ca's comment is stupid.

We, european, should not supply UA and follow USA's plan in their proxy war. We should instead really work on a diplomatic level. BUT by playing the stupid rats we are, Putin has not reason to listen.

No tankie, no Putin-sucker, i'm just plain rational and honest dude.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 0 points 3 years ago

No… you’re a tankie and Putin sucker 🙂

parent

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml -5 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

Who here said "we must let bad things happen"?

The commenter you replied to just mentioned that if we are outraged at Russia, we should be even more outraged at the US, and since a much longer time. But Ukraine and Russia are the only issues most hypocrites with double standards speak about. Say any criticism of the west and they lash out like is happening right here.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 12 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Because criticism of the west is totally irrelevant to the question. It’s not even whataboutism; it’s absurdity. Even if the west is literally Satan incarnate, why does that mean we have to let Putin wage whatever war of aggression he desires?

The people who advance this argument are so anti-US they’ve become dictator simps. I think it’s good to shove the absurdity of their positions back in their faces.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml -9 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

Did you miss the very first sentence of my comment where I said:

Who here said "we must let bad things happen"

And the whole rest of the comment that refutes your claim that we "have to let Putin wage whatever war of aggression he desires"?

Please take the time to read it again, because your points were already addressed.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 11 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Nothing in your comment refuted anything. Be as angry as you want at America; it has nothing to do with anything Putin is doing in Ukraine. It isn’t even whataboutism, as I said before. It’s just absurdity.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 years ago

I pointed at the exact sentence that refuted what you said. You kept responding to whatever I didn't say. If you're not addressing what I said in my comment, you're just talking to yourself. I'll stop replying until you address me directly. Enjoy talking to yourself.

parent

[+] TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml -7 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

[removed by mod]

parent

[+] kd637_mi@lemmy.sdf.org -15 points 3 years ago (2 children)

No, it's pointing out a precedent set by the USA and allies that wholesale slaughter of innocents is acceptable to the international community. Russia's invasion, whether legitimate or not, is no more spurious in its reasons than so many of the USA's ones over the last how ever many decades.

That doesn't make this one right, it just points out that the "rules based order" is a falsehood. Otherwise every US president in recent to not so recent history would also have an arrest warrant out for them, and the US would be sanctioned into the ground.

I generally have a hard time believing the US intends to do good outside of padding the pockets of corporate lobbyists and politicians. I'm not a fan of the whole "until the last Ukrainian" war that's happening either.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 9 points 3 years ago (1 child)

This seems totally unrelated to my point.

Even if this is true, we can still try to do the right thing. And we should try.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] kd637_mi@lemmy.sdf.org -6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

You said the other commenter's point seemed to be 'because America did bad things we must let bad things happen'. That wasn't their point, at least not to my reading of it. I read it as trying to highlight the hypocrisy of the international community, which usually means the USA and associated countries.

None of this is to excuse the war in Ukraine, but if the international community is to mean anything, and to have any legitimacy, it needs to apply the rules across the board. Since it doesn't mean anything beyond what is good for the US/corporate interests, the rules have not, and will not be applied evenly.

The US is not trying to do the right thing, it is trying to advance it's interests in the region at the expense of Russia, and unfortunately for Ukrainians at the expense of them too, even if it benefits Ukraine as a state. The fact that the US can wage so many destructive wars that are later acknowledged as mistakes and still be seen as trying to do the right thing shows how effective the propaganda arm of the country is.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

But who cares if the US is trying to advance its interests in the region? Again, Russia is waging an unjust war of territorial aggression against Ukraine. That’s wrong and immoral on the face of it and should be resisted. If the US is willing to intervene, I honestly don’t care if they achieve strategic objectives on the side. I am interested in opposing imperialism, which, in this case, the US is doing.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] kd637_mi@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Ok, fair enough. But the achieving strategic objectives isn't on the side, it's the primary aim. People can see that and still support the US supporting Ukraine, but it seems so many people just think that the US are 'the good guys'. They aren't. No one is. The Ukrainian government aren't the good guys, stopping people from leaving the country and forcing them to fight, and honouring Bandera and Azov. The Russian government aren't the good guys, conscripting their own citizens to fight people they say are their brothers, and their denazifying rhetoric might have had some pull if they didn't trade back those very Nazis after Azovstahl. The US government and the collective west aren't the good guys, supplying just enough weaponry to keep Ukraine in the fight, then upping support when it looks bad.

Also, going back to my talk about precedents set by the USA, this sets a precedent for other countries to overtly arm, fund, train, and supply intelligence to their direct opponents in any if their future aggressive wars. If the counterargument to that is, 'well, they can try, but we will fuck them up,' then we are in might makes right territory, which is more or less how the US currently operates, but clearly not ideal.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

But this has been true of conflicts in the modern era before now. Hand-wringing about this one in particular seems extremely selective to me. But, you do you.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] kd637_mi@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 3 years ago

Well, I'm not just hand-wringing about this particular conflict. We are in a thread about this conflict and I am trying to explain my viewpoint on why bringing up the warcrimes of the US and allies is not simply whataboutism.

parent

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 4 points 3 years ago (4 children)

But the United States did not carpet bomb half of the Middle East like Russia is doing to Ukraine. The United States did not level Baghdad, or Kabul. Last time I checked both of those cities were still standing.

Do you want to talk about what aboutism? Go look at The destruction of Aleppo. That was done by the Assad regime with the backing of Russia. The United States never inflicted that level of destruction anywhere close to the scale of that war which has killed over 600,000 people.

https://youtu.be/n9cDP-UdP3E?si=_qWJYgdxvZR61X4X

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 2 points 3 years ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/n9cDP-UdP3E?si=_qWJYgdxvZR61X4X

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

parent

[–] gnuhaut@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 years ago

What? When the US attacked Iraq they obliterated the infrastructure with air strikes. Electricity was almost completely out for weeks and wasn't fully repaired for years. Water treatment failed because of the lack of electricity, causing epidemics. Lots of other civilian shit got struck as well. Iraqi infrastructure got fucked way worse than Ukraine's.

The United States never inflicted that level of destruction anywhere close to the scale of that war which has killed over 600,000 people.

Are you serious?

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/

Over 940,000 people have died in the post-9/11 wars due to direct war violence.

An estimated 3.6-3.8 million people have died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, bringing the total death toll to at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting.

parent

[+] TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

[removed by mod]

parent

[–] kd637_mi@lemmy.sdf.org -3 points 3 years ago

No it didn't level Baghdad or Kabul. It did level Fallujah. Russia hasn't leveled Kyiv. It has leveled Mariupol.

It isn't just the US, the issue is that it is all backed and supported by its allies, including my country. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, not to mention the previous wars the international community has been involved in. There are still extrajudicial killings using drones, which would be considered terrorism if done the the US or allies.

parent