Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the United States had raised the possibility of a new security framework for Europe as part of efforts to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, warning that Moscow could use such discussions to weaken NATO and reshape the continent’s borders.
“In my view, this can be dangerous,” Zelenskyy told reporters Friday. “This should not be the main agenda.” His comments were embargoed until Saturday.
Zelenskyy also said that the United States had asked for the first time whether Ukraine would withdraw from parts of the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine that Russia does not control if Kyiv were admitted to NATO.
He said he believed Moscow was interested in reopening broader questions about European security rather than focusing exclusively on ending the 4 1/2-year war.
*would
Journalists using all this passive language and providing cover for these assclowms isn’t cute.
The headline is attributing the statement to a person, and it uses the same words he used.
“In my view, this can be dangerous,” Zelenskyy told reporters Friday, referring to the new security framework. “This should not be the main agenda.” His comments were embargoed until Saturday.
Surely you are not suggesting they editorialize his remarks?
new European security framework floated by US
I must have missed something. What is this?
…
A quick search later, it’s just something some US spokesperson spat out during the “peace” talks. Or is it any more concrete than that? What would that even be? Kicking EU out of NATO? Not that the USA could do that. I’m just trying to understand what ideas are expressed through that term.
A quick search later, it’s just something some US spokesperson spat out during the “peace” talks. Or is it any more concrete than that?
My understanding is that it is part of the peace talks, options being floated to see if both sides can agree. I’m not sure how to address the question about it being “concrete”. It’s a negotiation, I don’t think those are supposed to be concrete. But it’s not public, if that’s what you mean.
Kicking EU out of NATO?
I don’t think there is any indication that this will directly impact the participation of existing countries within NATO. Neither Russia nor Ukraine are in NATO. I read this as a framework for relations between those two countries and potentially between NATO and those two countries or at least Russia if Ukraine is to become part of NATO.
Take this:
He said he believed Moscow was interested in reopening broader questions about European security rather than focusing exclusively on ending the 4 1/2-year war.
“(Russian President Vladimir) Putin’s desire to change borders in Europe is a fact. I am sure this is part of his concept of revising security guarantees in Europe,” he said. “This is dangerous because, in my view, it is precisely things like this that lead to wars or escalations.
And this:
Zelenskyy said the United States had asked for the first time whether Ukraine would withdraw from parts of the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine that Russia does not control if Kyiv were admitted to NATO. He reiterated that Kyiv would not surrender its territory.
…
Zelenskyy warned that broader discussions about Europe’s security could allow Putin to seek changes to NATO’s military presence, including the withdrawal of American troops.
He said Putin had raised similar ideas with then-President Joe Biden in 2021, seeking a redistribution of power in Europe and the world.
“I think Putin will bring up Finland and Sweden. I’m sure he will raise the issue of Hungary and the presence of American troops in the Baltic countries,” Zelenskyy said.
And it sounds like Russia is may want to exchange territory for guarantees of peace, or want to negotiate limiting US military presence, i.e. imposing restriction on NATO operations.
Moscow was interested in reopening broader questions about European security
Immediate red flag. “Moscow is interested in weakening European security”
(and yes, the quote is Zelenskyy speculating - correctly imo)
I mean yeah, I don’t think anyone, regardless of their views on the war, are surprised to hear that Russia would ask for changes to NATO operations as part of the negotiations.
NATO might have initially had more focus on peace guarantees within its member states (which included countries that were at war with each other years prior) but it’s now almost entirely about being a united bloc to deter Russia.
NATO might have initially had more focus on peace guarantees within its member states (which included countries that were at war with each other years prior) but it’s now almost entirely about being a united bloc to deter Russia.
Neither part of that statement is correct.
Perhaps you can help me understand?
From NATOs website, presented to discuss the positioning of NATO to deter Russia
During the Cold War, NATO focused on collective defence and the protection of its members from potential threats emanating from the Soviet Union. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of non-state actors affecting international security, many new security threats have emerged, such as terrorism. Moreover, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine – including its illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion in 2022 – have radically altered the security environment.
I’m not saying Russian is their sole focus, but it’s a big one.
With respect to peace between members:
It is often said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union. This is only partially true. In fact, the Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.
Can you help me see what I’m missing which makes my statement untrue?
Thugs want money, thugs want more influence in EU. Thugs are Russia and USA(this term and every other term)
Trump cannot be trusted to have Ukraine’s best interest in mind. Trump could try to force Ukraine to accept a bad deal by limiting access to Starlink. Europe must negotiate with Putin independent of the US. This is what Europe should propose to Putin. Russia will withdraw from all land it seized from Ukraine after the 2022 invasion. NATO would be dissolved and replaced with a European alliance. Ukraine and Canada would be permitted to join but not the US. All sanctions against Russia will be lifted. Russia will not be required to pay reparations. If Putin doesn’t accept the proposal, the UK and France would send troops to Ukraine.
Trump can’t be trusted to have the United States best interest in mind.
Realistically I think giving up Donbass for NATO membership might be the only way this ends. It’s something both sides don’t want. I hate the precedent it sets though. And let’s say that gets agreed and Putin just does the same thing again somewhere else - are NATO going to enter all-out war with Russia over say a small piece of land annexed in Estonia?
If Russia tries to claim an inch of NATO territory, the proper response is to send whatever it takes to push them out. If Russia doesn’t care to send many troops, NATO just needs enough to beat them back, but if Russia decides it’s worth all-out war, then we either stop them or let them chip away like that until we can’t stop them anymore.
The problem is that Russia would be able to choose the location, and presight the whole thing, making it an extremely costly attack. They would make it look like a civilian uprising by a majority Russian population and say something like ‘an attack on russian citizens is an attack on Russia’.
They would lose in all-out war vs NATO, their way to ‘defeat’ NATO is to defeat the agreement itself.
Also alongside all this they’re constantly trying to influence the politics of individual members to fracture it apart. And depending on what you believe they may even have an asset leading the US.
I get that Russia is going to do everything they can to discourage a NATO response when the time inevitably comes, but that doesn’t change the fact that NATO only really has two choices in the event of any attack by Russia. They can either respond in force anyway, or they can admit they somehow never had any idea who they were up against in spite of abundant evidence and should have printed the NATO contracts on toilet paper so signers would at least get something useful out of the deal.
