Zelenskyy insists on guarantees ahead of Trump meeting after US president says Ukraine can ‘forget about’ joining Nato – live
www.theguardian.com
Ukrainian president says ‘guarantees of peace and security’ were vital ahead of expected talks in Washington on Friday

Donald Trump, at his first cabinet meeting, said he believed the US is negotiating “very successfully” with Russia and Ukraine.

The US president suggested that a ceasefire deal is close. “We’re going to make a deal with Russia and Ukraine to stop killing people,” he told reporters.

Asked if he is willing to make security guarantees as part of the deal, Trump replied:

I’m not going to make security guarantees beyond very much … We’re going to have Europe do that, because Europe is the next door neighbour.

He added that the US will be partnering with Ukraine “in terms of rare earth.” “We very much need rare earth, they have great rare earth,” Trump said.

Trump said it was “great deal for Ukraine too, because they get us over there, we are going to be working over there”.

  • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    15 hours ago

    The longer the war persists, the more destruction and devastation there will be, the more what’s called collateral damage elsewhere, massive starvation because of the closing off of Black Sea exports — there’s some relaxation of that, but we have little information about it — threat of nuclear war increases, and perhaps most significantly of all, and least discussed, is the fact that as the war continues, the limited efforts to deal with the overwhelming crisis of climate destruction, those reverse.

    2nd part of the DemocracyNow interview

    Now Putin has moved on to the anticipated escalation, “targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure over the last few weeks and stepping up its strikes in the eastern region of the country.” Putin’s escalation to the U.S.-U.K.-Israel model has been rightly condemned for its brutality — condemned by those who have accepted the original with little if any objection, and whose ghastly gamble laid the groundwork for the escalation, exactly as was warned throughout. There will be no accountability, though some lessons may have been learned.

    https://chomsky.info/20221116-2/

    Is reading the headline as far as you got? The US was incredibly brutal when invading Iraq. That doesn’t mean Russia isn’t also very brutal when they target civilians and civilian infrastructure, it means the US has historically been more brutal than Russia currently is when the US invaded other sovereign countries. If you think Chomsky doesn’t consider Russia’s invasion criminal, brutal, and unjustifiable, that’s just not correct. If you actually read the interviews, his analysis is on what aspects of US foreign policy are prolonging the conflict. The US has never cared about Ukrainian Sovereignty, the US only cares about continuing US foreign policy of Neo-colonialism. Funding Ukraine militarily was/is the correct thing to do, that doesn’t mean the US in invulnerable to criticism in all aspects of it’s foreign policy on Ukraine. Like how they went weak on sactions, or how they refused to give iron dome tech to Ukraine.

    Yet those who take a “Genocide is okay because it’s expensive or hurts my fee-fees to oppose 🥺” position gets a pass from you on one genocide, but infinite criticism and accelerationism for the other.

    What drugs are you smoking? I’ve never been ok with any genocide for any reason. Unlike many liberals who were fine with Biden funding genocide because “it’s not an important issue”. I’ve always been against genocide and accelerationism. Quote me proving otherwise or get your pathetic strawman out of here.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      15 hours ago

      If you think Chomsky doesn’t consider Russia’s invasion criminal, brutal, and unjustifiable, that’s just not correct. If you actually read the interviews

      Yet Chomsky’s world-view does not leave space for Ukrainian agency. It is the “US and Britain” who have “refused” peace negotiations in Ukraine, Chomsky tells me, in order to further their own national interests, even as the country is being “battered, devastated”. That negotiations with Russia would mean de facto abandoning millions of Ukrainians to the whims of an aggressor that has shown itself capable of extraordinary brutality, such as in Bucha and Izyum, is dismissed. “Ukraine is not a free actor; they’re dependent on what the US determines,” he says, adding that the US is supplying Kyiv with weapons simply to weaken Russia. “For the US, this is a bargain. For a fraction of the colossal military budget, the US is able to severely degrade the military forces of its only real military adversary.”

      According to Chomsky, Russia is acting with restraint and moderation. He compares Russia’s way of fighting with the US’s during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, arguing that large-scale destruction of infrastructure seen in that conflict “hasn’t happened in Ukraine”. He adds: “Undoubtedly Russia could do it, presumably with conventional weapons. [Russia] could make Kyiv as unliveable as Baghdad was, could move in to attacking supply lines in western Ukraine.”

      When I asked him to clarify whether he was implying that Russia is fighting more humanely in Ukraine than the US did in Iraq, Chomsky replies, “I’m not implying it, it’s obvious.” Delegations of UN inspectors had to be withdrawn once the invasion of Iraq began, he says, “because the attack was so severe and extreme… That’s the US and British style of war.” Chomsky adds: “Take a look at casualties. All I know is the official numbers… the official UN numbers are about 8,000 civilian casualties [in Ukraine]. How many civilian casualties were there when the US and Britain attacked Iraq?”

      Still incapable of reading, I see.

      For bonus points, Chomsky’s typical brand of ‘brilliant’ IR takes.

      At times, Chomsky’s ideological priors lead him to overlook facts that might contradict his narrative. For instance, Sweden and Finland, which had been officially non-aligned for 210 and 73 years, respectively, both applied to join Nato in May 2022. To most observers, the end of their decades of neutrality might seem at least tangentially related to the invasion of Ukraine three months earlier. However, Chomsky says that both countries seeking to join Nato had “nothing to do with fear of a Russian attack, which has never been even conceived”. Claims that Russia could threaten either country amount to “Western propaganda”, he adds. Instead, Chomsky argues that joining Nato gives the military industries of both Nordic countries “great new market opportunities [and] new access to advanced equipment”.

      Sovereignty, of course, is a Western Imperialist Lie, and it’s only natural that a brave anti-imperialist like Chomsky would oppose it.

      Asked what form a potential settlement to the war in Ukraine might take, Chomsky says: “First of all, Ukraine will not be a member of Nato. That’s the red line that every Russian leader has insisted on since [the former Russian president Boris] Yeltsin and [the former Soviet president Mikhail] Gorbachev.” He adds: “Ukraine gains the status of, say, Austria during the Cold War or Mexico today. Mexico can’t join a military alliance [hostile to the US]. There’s no treaty about it but it’s perfectly obvious.”

      A peace agreement would involve Ukraine offering “a degree of autonomy” to the eastern Donbas region, today partially occupied by Russia. “With regard to Crimea [which was illegally annexed in 2014]… we put it off for the moment. Let it be discussed later. Those are the basic outlines of a solution under the Minsk II agreement.” The Minsk I and II agreements were signed between Ukraine and Russia in 2014 and 2015. Intended to end the conflict that began in 2014, they included military and political steps that were never implemented by Moscow. The agreements are today widely viewed in Ukraine as having paved the way for Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. “There will be no Minsk III,” as the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky curtly put it last November.

      And, of course, the classic “Look how she was dressed, the whore was asking for it”

      Chomsky’s criticisms of US foreign policy are not limited to Ukraine. Just as Washington provoked Russia with Nato expansion it is also “provoking China openly” over Taiwan, he tells me. “The US is carrying out a programme… to encircle China with a ring of sentinel states armed with advanced precision weapons aimed at China,” an apparent reference to American defence cooperation with countries such as Japan, South Korea and Australia.

      “What is the threat from China at this point?” Chomsky asks me. “The threat is coming from the US with, of course, Britain following. [The UK] is just a lackey at this point. It’s not an independent country anymore.” Though he acknowledges that China is “not a nice country” and is violating international law in the South China Sea, he says “the talk about [war over] Taiwan is coming from the West”. Beijing, which views Taiwan as its own territory, has not ruled out an invasion and regularly conducts military exercises which simulate a blockade of the self-governing island.

      And for the final round of hypocrisy

      Reflecting on our conversation, I came across a passage in an essay from Chomsky’s 1970 book At War with Asia. “As long as an American army of occupation remains in Vietnam, the war will continue,” he wrote. “Withdrawal of American troops must be a unilateral act, as the invasion of Vietnam by the American government was a unilateral act in the first place. Those who had been calling for ‘negotiations now’ were deluding themselves and others.” These words seem to me to be more applicable to the war in Ukraine than anything Noam Chomsky said during our conversation 53 years later.

      What drugs are you smoking? I’ve never been ok with any genocide for any reason. Unlike many liberals who were fine with Biden funding genocide because “it’s not an important issue”. I’ve always been against genocide and accelerationism. Quote me proving otherwise or get your pathetic strawman out of here.

      I literally posted screenshots of the guys we were discussing playing genocide games, but go off. Infinite apologia for one genocide is permitted, but not the other.

      • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        8 hours ago

        Yet Chomsky’s world-view does not leave space for Ukrainian agency. It is the “US and Britain” who have “refused” peace negotiations in Ukraine, Chomsky tells me, in order to further their own national interests, even as the country is being “battered, devastated”

        Chomsky is pointing out that the US, who Ukraine is still very dependent on for military weapons, and Russia, who is invading Ukraine, have the power here. That’s the reality of imperial hard power, they don’t give a shit about Ukrainian Sovereignty. They only care about economic resources. Of course Ukraine should have sovereignty, the issue is that the US and Russia have no interest in respecting their sovereignty. They have robbed Ukraine of it for financial gain. Imperialist powers always rob countries of their sovereignty and natural resources.

        On February 24th, Putin invaded, a criminal invasion. These serious provocations provide no justification for it. If Putin had been a statesman, what he would have done is something quite different. He would have gone back to French President Emmanuel Macron, grasped his tentative proposals, and moved to try to reach an accommodation with Europe, to take steps toward a European common home.

        The U.S., of course, has always been opposed to that. This goes way back in Cold War history to French President De Gaulle’s initiatives to establish an independent Europe. In his phrase “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” integrating Russia with the West, which was a very natural accommodation for trade reasons and, obviously, security reasons as well. So, had there been any statesmen within Putin’s narrow circle, they would have grasped Macron’s initiatives and experimented to see whether, in fact, they could integrate with Europe and avert the crisis. Instead, what he chose was a policy which, from the Russian point of view, was total imbecility. Apart from the criminality of the invasion, he chose a policy that drove Europe deep into the pocket of the United States. In fact, it is even inducing Sweden and Finland to join NATO — the worst possible outcome from the Russian point of view, quite apart from the criminality of the invasion, and the very serious losses that Russia is suffering because of that.

        So, criminality and stupidity on the Kremlin side, severe provocation on the U.S. side. That’s the background that has led to this. Can we try to bring this horror to an end? Or should we try to perpetuate it? Those are the choices.

        At least use quotes from a full interview instead of from someone intentionally framing snips that go against statements Chomsky has already said.

        https://chomsky.info/20220616/

        Most Taiwanese want no change from the current situation. They don’t want any escalation whatsoever.

        But that image of Lloyd Austin announcing the deployment of U.S. forces to four new bases, in addition to five U.S. bases where U.S. troops are deployed in the Philippines, making a total of nine, potentially, in days and months to come, that’s precisely the wrong image and precisely the wrong direction that the U.S. should be going in. The United States, the Biden administration and a larger foreign policy elite, I’m sad to say, has hijacked our foreign policy and is currently escalating military tensions with China at precisely the moment we need to be moving in the other direction. We need to be drawing down U.S. military bases and forces in the region, while building up our diplomatic presence.

        The U.S. Has 750 Overseas Military Bases, and Continues to Build More to Encircle China

        Sixty percent of Taiwanese support maintaining the “status quo,” with 34 backing it “indefinitely,” and 26 percent favoring either declaring independence or unifying with China at a later date, depending on the conditions.

        https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2024/12/05/2003828000

        Reflecting on our conversation, I came across a passage in an essay from Chomsky’s 1970 book At War with Asia. “As long as an American army of occupation remains in Vietnam, the war will continue,” he wrote. “Withdrawal of American troops must be a unilateral act, as the invasion of Vietnam by the American government was a unilateral act in the first place. Those who had been calling for ‘negotiations now’ were deluding themselves and others.” These words seem to me to be more applicable to the war in Ukraine than anything Noam Chomsky said during our conversation 53 years later.

        Russia completely withdrawing is still the correct thing for Russia to do. Good luck convincing Putin, many thousands in Russia have already been arrested for protesting the war. See what Chomsky has said on the anti-war movement in the US and it’s effects on the US withdrawing, then see if that’s applicable to the citizens of Russia protesting the war having an impact on Russia foreign policy. The US does not have the power to force Russia to do a full withdrawal, and that’s assuming the US is interested in protecting Ukrainian Sovereignty which it’s not. Chomsky is critiquing US foreign policy and how it fails to be in any genuine interests of protecting Ukrainian Sovereignty.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          49 minutes ago

          Chomsky is pointing out that the US, who Ukraine is still very dependent on for military weapons, and Russia, who is invading Ukraine, have the power here.

          Wait wait wait, you think that the US and Russia have the power here… when Ukraine could make peace at any time?

          Like, Chomsky isn’t here saying that the US should back Ukraine more. He’s literally saying the opposite. What the fuck? Are you really this desperate to play apologist for him that you’re posing him as saying the exact opposite of what he is?

          Fucking sickening.