To be disgusted at the talks between Russia and the US

[SunnyDayInFeb]

So Russia and the US are meeting in Saudia Arabia to carve up Ukraine.

And Ukraine, whose people have been fighting and dying since their country was invaded, haven't even been invited to the table.

It's like we are back in the 19th century with the European colonial powers drawing lines on a map to divide Africa between them.

I’m so sorry someone has spoken to you that way - and I’m so sorry for the losses you have suffered of so many family members 😢

The only person who wants the illegal invasion of Ukraine to continue is Putin. He could pull his troops out anytime he likes and it would end.
Ukraine is being caught in a land grab pincer movement, levered by a so called ally. Both Russia and America want to plunder the land, they are going about it in different ways, but neither have good intentions.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

Of course they don’t want to carry it on endlessly.

But they do want to carry it on until their borders are secure.

Counterpoints to the Argument Against U.S.-Russia Talks on Ukraine
Key Arguments and Rebuttals

1. "Russia and the U.S. are meeting to carve up Ukraine without its involvement."

• Counterpoint: This is a misrepresentation of diplomatic efforts. These discussions are not about "carving up" Ukraine but exploring pathways to a ceasefire or broader peace negotiations. Diplomatic talks often begin with indirect engagement before including all parties, especially in cases where direct negotiations have proven unworkable.
• Example: The Vietnam War's peace process initially involved the U.S. and North Vietnam before South Vietnam was formally included in the Paris Peace Accords.

2. "Ukraine should be present at the table from the outset."

• Counterpoint: While Ukraine must ultimately be a party to any final agreement, preliminary discussions between major powers can help break deadlocks. History shows that powerful intermediaries often facilitate peace processes, particularly when direct negotiations between warring parties have failed.
• Example: The U.S.-Taliban talks in Doha initially excluded the Afghan government, yet they played a role in the ultimate withdrawal agreement.

3. "This is like 19th-century colonialism, where great powers decide the fate of smaller nations."

• Counterpoint: The colonial analogy does not apply here. Colonialism involved the exploitation and annexation of foreign lands, while these talks are an attempt to de-escalate conflict, prevent further loss of life, and maintain territorial sovereignty where possible.
• Reality: The U.S. and Russia are not "dividing" Ukraine; rather, they are seeking ways to manage a conflict that has broader global implications, including economic stability and nuclear security.

4. "Europe and Ukraine are excluded because they are too hardline."

• Counterpoint: The exclusion of Ukraine and the EU from initial talks is a strategic decision, not an ideological one. Europe’s approach has been heavily sanctions-driven, and Ukraine has been firm in rejecting any territorial concessions. A different diplomatic entry point may be needed to open the door for more inclusive talks.
• Example: The Camp David Accords (1978) started with U.S.-led discussions with Israel and Egypt separately before bringing them to direct negotiations.

5. "Russia seeks to re-establish control over Eastern Europe."

• Counterpoint: While Russia’s historical ambitions cannot be ignored, assuming that any peace talks automatically lead to unchecked Russian expansion is speculative. Without negotiations, the alternative is an indefinite war, which may also favor Russia’s long-term interests if Western support for Ukraine diminishes.
• Security Perspective: Ukraine’s ability to resist depends on sustained military aid, which is not guaranteed in the long run, particularly given shifting U.S. domestic politics.

6. "This is a bad faith attempt to sell Ukraine out."

• Counterpoint: There is no evidence that the U.S. seeks to unilaterally impose a settlement that betrays Ukraine. The Biden administration has repeatedly affirmed Ukraine’s sovereignty and will ultimately need Ukrainian buy-in for any agreement.
• Realpolitik: The longer the war continues, the greater the risks of economic strain, shifting political support, and a prolonged humanitarian crisis—negotiations are a necessity, not a betrayal.

7. "If the U.S. withdraws military aid, Ukraine will collapse."

• Counterpoint: While U.S. aid is crucial, assuming immediate collapse ignores Ukraine’s resilience and Europe’s role. The EU has ramped up defense production, and alternative funding mechanisms are being explored. However, diplomatic negotiations remain necessary to secure a long-term solution.
• Example : The Afghanistan withdrawal was fundamentally different—Ukraine has strong state institutions, a national identity, and Western economic backing, unlike the Afghan government, which collapsed due to internal divisions and corruption.

@Cupcakes2035 Is that your personal opinion?

Yes, and as im dyslexic i used Grammarly to run grammar and spelling, i did history at degree level, that and wikipedia

@Cupcakes2035 is that the best ChatGPT could do?

im dyslexic i used Grammarly to run grammar and spelling, at least i aim to help the thread and put forward a good argument, id be intrigued to see you go point by point and prove me wrong about my points,

Bollocks. If that isn't a draft based on AI then we should all pack up and go home, You make actual human bots look sophisticated

@Cupcakes2035 should you be sharing your script?

@Cupcakes2035 chatgpt seems to have made a couple of errors. At one point it starts to mention the Biden administration.

not an error, In a joint statement from July 2024, President Biden and President Zelenskyy underscored the United States' "unwavering support for Ukraine's defense of its sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders."

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/joint-statement-president-biden-and-president-volodymyr-zelenskyy-ukraine-bilateral

More in-depth research

so do i get an apology for your assumption and your error ???

The dearth of an actual conclusion is really the giveaway

So the whole thread is about what Trump is doing at the moment holding talks with Russia without Ukraine being invited.

If you did write this yourself perhaps you could explain how it makes any sense, given that Biden isn't the president any more?

This is a bad faith attempt to sell Ukraine out."

• Counterpoint: There is no evidence that the U.S. seeks to unilaterally impose a settlement that betrays Ukraine. The Biden administration has repeatedly affirmed Ukraine’s sovereignty and will ultimately need Ukrainian buy-in for any agreement.

The U.S. and Russia are not "dividing" Ukraine; rather, they are seeking ways to manage a conflict that has broader global implications, including economic stability and nuclear security

@Cupcakes2035 as the talks haven't happened yet, how do you know what is and isn't on the agenda?

Are you a historian?

The point stands regardless of who is in office the U.S. has consistently supported Ukraine’s sovereignty,

how many posters on this thread would you pick apart their answers to see how accurate they are ?? at least im helping the thread with research

degree in politics and history

my educated guess, just like most posters on the thread, guessing as to what they think is what etc

No the point doesn't stand given that the present administration has a completely different policy.

then we agree to disagree and history will show who is correct or not

Turn the card over so you can tell us the reasoned conclusion

Fair enough. Let's hope you are right.

Someone on Radio 4 likened this to appeasement and I see their point. I do not understand how on earth an American president can brazenly negotiate fate of a country that isn't his country. It's outrageous. And this signals the destabilisation of NATO and Europe. We live in very dangerous times and this is very, very dangerous.

but the problem is in this case we go to war with Russia and its allies, then its global nuclear war,