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.

  • roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That all sounds like brigading emotional nonsense. In fact, there were strong reasons for Russia to invade. It is probably true that Russia was manipulated into invading, it had no choice because of strategic decisions made by Ukraine. It’s a shame none of the people you talked to were able to argue the issues sensibly.

    • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lol Ukraine strategically decided not to surrender their territory, thus manipulating the peaceful Russians to invade

    • tomatopathe@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why should Russia strategically be required to invade exactly?

      I’ve never heard a cogent argument on this point.

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

        It’s because Russia sees NATO as a threat and wants to take control of Ukraine to keep buffer states on the west side. Also, to keep it’sblack sea fleet safe. Why it happened now and not sooner or later - nobody knows. The official reasoning, of course, is bullshit, just like with any other war. Not the worst one, though.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay, but you didn’t actually answer the question, you just pointed to the geopolitical equivalent of blurry sasquatch footage. What’s the strategic logic?

          • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            M.A.D.

            Seems like a really dishonest question when you’re pretending not to understand such a basic concept. Unless you want me to believe that you’re an idiot or something?

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The MAD play would be to stay within their borders and make sure their nukes and delivery systems are all in good working order. Escalating at great cost and with a risk to internal stability isn’t very good from a MAD perspective.

      • uberkalden@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Probably the tired line of NATO expansion fears. How’d that work out? Does Russia have more or less NATO countries near their borders? The invasion itself is the best sales pitch NATO could ever need.

          • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            So Russia says: “Nooo, nooo, don’t band together to defend yourself against our aggression! You mustn’t band together to defend against me! Wait if you even dare think about it, I’ll invade you. So here come the tanks”

            • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              1 year ago

              What aggression? NATO is the obvious aggressor here? You don’t even believe what you’re saying. This propaganda is stale man. Even NATO admits it was the provoker.

                  • uberkalden@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    There was no NATO aggression. The response doesn’t make sense anyways. It only strengthens NATO. Are you actually Russian? I can’t make any other sense of your stance here

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

                    Ukraine wanting to join NATO is NATO aggression? Lol France & Germany even said they wouldn’t allow them in

    • seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is probably true that Russia was manipulated into invading, it had no choice because of strategic decisions made by Ukraine.

      Of course Russia had a choice. Not invading a country is the easiest thing to do. I do it every day, and I have nowhere near the power and resources that Vlad Putin does.

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

      I mean look, it’s a nation we talked in to giving up it’s nuclear weapons in exchange for protection and recognition by us. We really had no choice but to invade.