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

      • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 days ago

        An entirely treasonous party.

        If you support a traitor, you are a traitor.

        The old Republican party is dead. Now it’s only grifters and sycophants who are 100% willing to be treasonous to get what they want.

        And so far the “land of the brave” is rolling over and letting them do it.

  • rylock@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    139
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    “Turns out, Russia doesn’t want to concede anything and demanded more Ukrainian land. Well, we tried. Clearly, it’s high time for Ukraine to stop getting in the way of peace.”

    • Little Marco in a week
  • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 days ago

    I miss the good old ‘we don’t negotiate with terrorists’ US.

    If someone breaks into your house, kicks your dog and rapes your wife, you don’t negotiate to let them keep your TV. You shoot that fucker between the eyes. That’s what we need to be doing.

    • commander@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      68
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      I miss the good old ‘we don’t negotiate with terrorists’ US.

      Pretty sure that was only a thing in movies.

      We negotiate with terrorists all the time.

      • in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        US literally funds terrorists, gives them weapons, and gives them CIA training to do terrorism. It’s like all these terrorist leaders went to the same school, of Americas.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          Ken: Colonel, the guy you bagged is Dr. Amir Teraki, Pakistani. PhD in Astrophysics, educated at Harvard.

          Colonel Tom Devoe: That’s right, people. We educated half the world’s terrorists.

          The Peacemaker wasn’t that well received but that line stuck with me.

    • Aux@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      ‘we don’t negotiate with terrorists’ US.

      That US never existed.

      • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        Heck, I’ll take any president who lived during my lifetime over Trump.

        Dubya definitely got rehabilitated the past decade in many people’s eyes. Of course, he’s still… probably… a war criminal over the whole Iraq / war on terror situation. But I certainly understand the average American wanting him over Trump. I miss when the worst thing a president did was misspeak like his ‘fool me once’.

  • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    9 days ago

    At the rate we’re going, I wouldn’t be surprised if trump drops all sanctions against Russia, and starts even funding them and providing them US weapons and Intel. I just wouldn’t be surprised.

    • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      68
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      I would assume they’re getting the Intel already. The entire administration is comprised of Russian assets and useful idiots. Even if the info isn’t being handed to them directly, all the existing security is being ripped to shreds and the teams that would counter any threats have officially been told to ignore Russia completely.

      That said, I wouldn’t put it past Trump to publicly give Intel to Russia, but only because he’s an idiot and assuming there is a low he won’t sink to his always a losing bet.

      • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        9 days ago

        I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re already in a slow rollout for him to go public with support for Russia. The deal could be that Russia and US split Ukraine in some way, whether it stays as “Ukraine” with installed leadership or blatantly annexed.

        The problem is the maga cult and the Republicans in congress who would support it. The maga masses will lap up whatever propaganda they’re fed like puppies and a bowl of peanut butter. But what the fuck are the Republican leadership thinking? At that point the US has fallen, but maybe it already has and we just don’t know yet. But maybe not… time will tell.

    • Sludgehammer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      I’d say it’s a given at this point.

      Trump has offended pretty much all of our major trade partners, so we need a new market to sell US goods as well as replace our imports. As it just so happens, Russia desperately needs goods due to the sanctions and has a reduced manufacturing capacity as a result of marching all their young (and not so young) men into a meat grinder. And even though Putin is a backstabbing, murderous, KGB thug Trump knows that he won’t touch him, because Trump’s just too useful of a flunky.

      Granted it’s a morally repugnant move, but when has that ever stopped Trump?

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      I think he was already pushing for that not too long ago, but all the bad press lately has him backpedalling and promising Sanctions and Tariffs, but still won’t give back the foreign aid he took away.

      I wonder what the useful idiot Elon Musk thinks about this, given he’s shown fealty to Putin several times already.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    Imagine a hypothetical scenario in which Mexico invades the United States, takes complete control over the state of New Mexico, and right in the middle of the conflict Great Britain says “the war needs to end”, drafts a ceasefire proposal that allows them take control of half of the country’s natural resources, and offers no security guarantees in the event that Mexico decides to attack again. If you refuse, the British will stop sending military aid to help you continue fighting. Oh, and Mexico gets to keep New Mexico.

    Who in their right fucking mind thinks that this is a good deal? Any sensible person would rather continue fighting than give up their advantage for some flimsy ceasefire that won’t stand up to an invader hellbent on conquest.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 days ago

      Lol. Remember when a bunch of assholes voted 3rd party or didn’t vote because they were upset with Democrat’s handling of foreign affairs?

      Clown country.

      • Ledericas@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        both stein and rfk got around 800+k votes. though i suspect many of them R voters on the fence.

      • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        8 days ago

        I’d do it again, rather get expropriated and deported from this micky mouse country than use what little political input I have to endorse a genocide

        • Kage520@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 days ago

          I think the point here is that, rather than endorse a genocide, you endorsed 2 genocides, and everything else that this administration does. I get that even one genocide is too much, but for that one you could be calling your representative and writing letters and doing whatever else you can to people who might care about those actions.

          • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            you could be calling your representative and writing letters and doing whatever else you can to people who might care about those actions.

            my representatives are Democrats, they didn’t care

            you endorsed 2 genocides

            by lying about Bidens nonfunctioning brain Democrats created this situation. my vote had zero impact

      • alkbch@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        8 days ago

        Do you remember when the Biden Harris administration provided military, financial and diplomatic support for a genocide that lead to hundred of thousands of casualties? No wonder people didn’t want to vote for them.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        I’m sure if you go far enough back in time you could say that anyone in control of any particular swathe of land stole it from somebody else. Past wrongs committed are not a valid casus belli for modern wars of aggression or land grabs.

        Regardless, your contrarianism doesn’t change the fact that Mexico surrendered that territory to us after the Mexican-American war. Legally, it belongs to the United States after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which redrew the border based on the path of the Rio Grande.

    • alkbch@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      8 days ago

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

      • Podunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 days 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.

        • alkbch@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

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

        • Furbag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days 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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days 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.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days 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.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days 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.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days 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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days 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.

            • alkbch@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              Nobody’s forcing Ukraine to sign a peace deal, they can keep fighting if they want.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 days ago

    Likely true if we’re being real but… You don’t say that outloud you incompetent fucking negotiator.

  • Lit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    I don’t see any peace deal unless there is security guarantees, it is not peace without guarantees.

    This just embolden russia to rape Ukraine again for more lands. Marco Rubio is promoting a forever war.

    Ukraine guarantees were taken away when the nukes were taken away.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 days ago

      MAGA is a terrorist organization. Their whole missguided ideology of “ruling by strength” is just another way of saying ruling by fear. Using fear/intimidation for a political outcome is by definition terrorism. If someone says it has to be illegal (not true) we can also show the number of arrests and violations of peoples legal rights occuring all over the U.S. Breaking laws pertaining to 1st amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 8th amendment, 9th amendment, 10th amendment, 14th amendment, 15th amendment, and the outright breaking of the law of the land (constitution) by overriding the legislature, which was the only thing keeping the U.S. a Republic.

      The U.S. is negotiating with terrorists every day

  • CobraChicken3000@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    9 days ago

    Without security guarantees, this isn’t a “peace” deal, it’s a capitulation and an invitation for future aggression from Russia.

    • commander@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      What about the security “guarantees” Ukraine already had?

      I guess it’s only a guarantee if it’s guaranteed at least twice? Lol.

        • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 days ago

          He’s talking about the 1994 treaty Ukraine made with Russia in which Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for Russia’s promise to never invade them.

          He put “guarantees” in quotes because Russia fucking lied.

          Because that’s what Russia does.

          So what good do any kinds of guarantees from Russia or America or anyone else do for Ukraine in regards to this war when they already gave up a powerful means of self defense and were fucking lied to?

    • pogt@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 days ago

      Gotta give him credit for being a consistent illegal occupation supporter.

      He’s treating Ukrainians now the same way he was treating Palestinians. Just cede occupied land to aggressors.

  • DaveyRocket@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    Why would Ukraine be negotiating with another adversary? That’s like a boxer going to the wrong corner after the round, that guy also wants you to get your ass kicked.

    • commander@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Because they’re losing and a part of losing in a war is making concessions to the winner.

      If Ukraine didn’t make concessions for a peace deal, Russia will just continue winning the war and Ukrainians will have even less.

      Sorry to all the new people in this world that fell for the propaganda machine. Hopefully this can be a learning experience for you all (it won’t.)

        • lorty@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 days ago

          Just look at Kursk, Velyka Novosilka and Chasiv Yar and ponder for a bit if they are winning or losing.

          • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            How much of their territory is under occupation vs. a month ago? By your logic, the USSR should have capitulated in 1942.

            This war has so far been a series of quick UA gains slowly recaptured by Russia before more quick UA gains. Russia has held more of UA before. What changed since the siege of Kyiv that makes it make sense to capitulate? That was a worse situation, yet here we are, years later and Kyiv is still Ukrainian, and the VDV has still not recovered.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        Because they’re losing and a part of losing in a war is making concessions to the winner.

        I’ve been hearing the line that Ukraine is losing for three years now. Pretty sure if Russia could win this conflict, they would have done so already.

        • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          I’ve been hearing the line that Ukraine is losing for three years now

          And how have the frontlines moved over said 3 years?

          • Furbag@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            With Ukraine failing to take back their occupied territory, but striking at Russian soil and taking some for themselves to use as a bargaining chip. I’d say it’s a dead stalemate right now,

            • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              I’d say it’s a dead stalemate right now

              Well then you’ve bought into the western propaganda. Don’t be surprised in some months when a very unfavourable peace agreement is signed.

      • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        You don’t get it though, Russia bad. Therefore, throwing your male population through forced conscription into the meat grinder with no expectation of winning is based and cool and patriotic.

          • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            Yes, Russia is a borderline fascist empire as it stands now, and its government deserves extreme criticism for it. Sad consequence of dismantling the Soviet Union and selling it to the most corrupt bidder under the supervision of MIT economists.

            What’s your point anyway? That sending people to the meat grinder in Ukraine is good actually by either side of the proxy inter-imperialist conflict?

            • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              People being dead is not good of course. What choice does the Ukrainian government have though other than to defend their country?

                • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  Specifically how? They were okay with neutrality before the genocidal war inflicted on them. They just signaled that they are open to an immediate ceasefire, but the Russians denied the offer.