The secretary of state, heading to talks with Ukrainian officials in Saudi Arabia, said future talks with Moscow will be needed to determine what Russia is willing to give up to end the war.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Monday that Ukraine would have to make concessions over land that Russia had taken since 2014 as part of any agreement to end the war.

Mr. Rubio spoke as he was flying to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for talks with senior Ukrainian officials, and 10 days after a contentious White House meeting between President Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky. The Trump administration halted military aid to Ukraine after the blowup, which centered on Mr. Trump’s refusal to include any security guarantees in a proposed deal involving Ukraine’s natural resources.

MBFC
Archive

  • alkbch@lemmy.mlEnglish
    420·
    16 hours ago

    That’s not a good example, the US does not rely on the UK to defend itself.

    • Furbag@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      4 hours ago

      It’s a hypothetical scenario. I could think of some better examples if you really wanted, but that’s the most salient one I could think of off of the top of my head, because you know if the United States was attacked, we would expect the international community to fall behind our right to defend ourselves from any and all threats to our sovereignty.

      I don’t see why things should be any different when considering Ukraine’s position.

      • alkbch@lemmy.mlEnglish
        11·
        2 hours ago

        The scenario just has nothing to do with the current situation in Ukraine. Of course Ukraine has the right to defend itself, nobody is saying otherwise.

        • Furbag@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          23 minutes ago

          Of course Ukraine has the right to defend itself, nobody is saying otherwise.

          Article headline: “Ukraine Must Cede Territory in Any Peace Deal, Rubio Says”

          Can’t exactly defend yourself when the people trying to broker peace on your behalf are forcing you to capitulate.

    • Podunk@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      16 hours ago

      To that point, lets be real, even the united states doesnt really care about new mexico. Crimea in this argument has actual economic value.

      Honestly any square foot of what russia has stolen from Ukraine has so much more economic value in comparison to new mexico, its hardly a realistic comparison.

      I get what you are saying. But taos vs a warm water sea port is such an insane comparison. Its so much worse. Albuquerque? Let em have it. Santa fe? Please.

      • Furbag@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        4 hours ago

        You’re looking too far into the details. The value of the territory is irrelevant for this hypothetical scenario. But I’ve been catching a lot of flak in the comments for it, so you know what? I’ll humor you, let’s change the formula.

        Let’s say tomorrow, Russia announces that because they feel that they were cheated in 1867, they are refusing to recognize the sale of the Alaska territory to the United States and are reestablishing their control over the land as it’s sole owner. They send an invasion force and they capture the land in a swift blitzkrieg-style assault, the United States is caught completely by surprise.

        Now, the United States fights, but we can’t really conduct ground operations without the support of Canada. They are our not just our neighbors, but our staunchest allies in this fight. However, a new Prime Minister is sworn in and they suddenly decide to take a massive shift in foreign policy, and try to broker a “peace deal” between Russia and the USA in which we agree to sign over the rights to future drilling operations to Canada in exchange for a ceasefire from Russia, but Russia gets to keep Alaska since they occupy it now anyway. Refusal means Canada pulls their support, forbids US soldiers from operating in Canadian waters or on Canadian soil, and conducting operations in the occupied Alaskan territory becomes virtually impossible. And, let’s not forget, no security agreements even if we do sign the agreement. So, if Russia decides to attack Hawaii or California next, nobody will be compelled to aid us.

        Is that a better comparison? Alaska has massive economic and strategic value, so there’s a good reason for Russia to want it. They’ve been regretting ever selling it to us in the first place.

        • Podunk@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          4 hours ago

          I mean im an adult that can contextualize the geopolitical reasononing behind why this is a bad deal without relying on heavy handed amerocentric hypotheticals.

          To be clear, I never disagreed with your point. I just think that your comparison was dumb. And honestly, using alaska is even worse.

          I dont know why you need a comparison in the first place. You already have the actual event to look at. Its in eastern europe. And they are in a war.

          • Furbag@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 hours ago

            I dont know why you need a comparison in the first place.

            Evidently, there are a LOT of people who don’t seem to understand just why the deal was so bad to begin with. Not you, of course, but some other comments in these Ukraine threads are either woefully uninformed or intentionally being obtuse about acknowledging facts.

            And sorry about it being a series of Amerocentric examples, especially here in World News where it’s probably a bit taboo or tone deaf, but suffice to say it seems like the primary culprit behind much the willful ignorance are Americans with a narrow understanding of foreign affairs. I’m also just sticking to what I know so I don’t embarrass myself with my terrible geography.

      • alkbch@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        7 hours ago

        Of course the United States cares about Mexico. New Mexico’s GDP is about 15 times higher than Crimea’s.