US President Donald Trump has reposted a message from another Truth Social user that claimed Ukraine must be prepared to cede part of its territory to Russia, otherwise it will lose even more later.
Source: Trump on Truth Social
Details: Trump reposted the post by another user of the social network.
Quote from the post: “Ukraine must be willing to lose some territory to Russia otherwise the longer the war goes on they will keep losing even more land!”
Background:
Earlier on Sunday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio asserted that the US will not pressure Ukraine into making territorial concessions to Russia as part of a potential peace agreement.On Sunday, Zelenskyy stated that he is only willing to discuss territorial issues with Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin at a trilateral Ukraine-US-Russia meeting.Trump announced after the Alaska summit that he had reached an agreement with Putin for a “land swap” between Ukraine and Russia and that “Zelenskyy has to agree”.According to Bloomberg, Trump informed European leaders and Zelenskyy that Putin is still demanding that Ukrainian troops withdraw from the entire territory of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, but is prepared to freeze the front in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts. Zelenskyy has rejected this demand.On Sunday, Reuters published the demands for ending the war that Putin put forward during his meeting with Trump in Alaska.On 18 August, President Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and several European leaders will meet at the White House.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Go f&@k yourself! - Quote from Stephen Colbert & Jon Stewart
Back to the 2014 borders. Slava Ukraini!
Does the idiot not really understand that Putin isn’t going to stop at Ukraine if he gets what he wants? I guess he’s 79, he knows he won’t be alive to care when eastern Europe gets slowly taken. Old age will get him within 10 years probably.
Trump works for Putin. Furthering the invasion is exactly the point.
He also works for Israel, I’m sure he’s walking an edge right now.
He would be fine with Eastern Europe getting slowly taken. Nobody he cares about lives there, because he doesn’t live there. If anything it would be nice because it would set a precedent that he could go wandering around other parts of the globe grabbing small nations that struck his fancy.
Once the wolves turned on him, because his usefulness to them is at its end, it would all of a sudden be very different, but by then the systems he’d destroyed would be unable to protect him. And, as you pointed out, he’s unlikely to live that long anyway.
Pathetic, but unsurprising from Trump
Ceding land is irrelevant.
There only thing that matters are security guarantees.
Security guarantees are meaningless either. European countries would not enter was with Russia with their own soldiers unless directly attacked by Russia. Even if they join some kind of binding security agreement with Ukraine they will find a way to not send their soldiers, and instead provide material/moral support from afar. Mobilization and actual war are extremely unpopular topic in Europe. Any government that sends their soldiers to Ukraine will collapse immediately and outsted by right wing nationalists (the only country that can probably pull it off is Poland).
I don’t see that EU would not commit and real security guarantees would have to involve troops at the border. So any Russian incursion would be attacking EU directly. Supporting Ukraine is very popular in Europe, from the whole political spectrum.
There can’t be all out war anyway. That’s not going to happen. Nobody wants that and if it happens all bets are off, makes no sense to take about those scenarios.
Security guarantees are there main thing. Nobody wants to die for a few fields in Donbas.
“Supporting Ukraine” by itself is just a sentiment, what matters is actions. And there is no universal agreement on how far Europe should go in that support.
So any Russian incursion would be attacking EU directly.
No, because Ukraine is not a part of EU. Politicians can (and do) debate what exactly “direct attack” means, who was actually at fault and even if the attack was real. Recent sabouteur and hacker attacks against EU countries by Russia have been called a “direct attack on Europe” for example, and many people have been calling for “harsh response” and for Europe to invade and destroy Russia in a curb-stomp battle. Politicians can slither their way out of any agreement, especially with uncertainty of war and Internet giving them ability to influence public opinion through social media.
You are missing the point. Any security guarantee that Ukraine would accept has to have provisions for any such situation, otherwise they have zero reasons to accept it
I’m not saying such agreement won’t be reached, I simply don’t believe it will be honored when the time comes. It all rests on the assumption that Putin will be deterred by existence of such guarantees, but he won’t. He will attack Ukraine again, and then what EU gonna do? They will do all they can to weasel out of it in order to avoid aforementioned all-out war. Maybe not by outright refusing, but by stalling, or sending only a token force, etc.
I think by now, we can all be certain that Putin will push the agreement to the limit. But that doesn’t need to be an all out war, just a very well defended border.
