EU’s Kaja Kallas emphasised that even during the Alaska summit, Russia resumed its attacks on Ukrainian territory. She said Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is “still trying to stall and hoping it will go without consequences.”
“He left Anchorage without making any commitment to stop the killing,” the official added.
[…]
In her opinion, the war will not stop until Russia “realises that it is no longer possible to continue it”.
Therefore, Europe will continue to strengthen its support for Ukraine, including through the preparation of a new, 19th package of sanctions against Moscow, the European official assured.
[…]
Kallas noted that European security issues cannot be a bargaining chip.
“The root of the war lies in Russia’s imperialist policy, not in the alleged imbalance of the European security architecture,” she concluded.
[…]
Not that it matters but the EU had insisted that it’s up to Ukraine to negotiate. The meeting ended with Trump saying that it’s up to Zelenskyy to negotiate a ceasefire.
Why should there be one at that point? It would question Zelenskyyk’s authority.
Kallas was apparently referring to Putin. He (Putin) left Anchorage without making any commitment to stop the killing.
This has nothing to do with Zelenskyyk or his authority.
Yes, she was referring to Putin. Why should Putin make that commitment after meeting Trump?
She’s saying Putin isn’t going to stop so we need to prepare for Russia to continue the war.
Yes, no question about that. The strange part is that she justifies it by the lack of Putin making a commitment.
Why should Putin make that commitment after meeting Trump and not after meeting Zelenskyy?
Nobody is saying he should’ve done it but rather just says aloud the *expected fact that he didn’t commit to it.
I think that sends the wrong signal. By bringing it up it suggests that it was a possible outcome.
I mean it was possible, just very unlikely.
unexpected
Who had expected the commitment?Why should Putin commit to anything before a negotiation? If Putin is supposed to negotiate with Zelenskyy then the EU cannot have that expectation. If they do then they undermine their previous position.I don’t think anyone had that expectation.
The expected fact would be a commitment.
Because that’s what trump wants. Are you paying any attention to this?
That’s the US perspective whereas EU says that Russia and US cannot negotiate about Ukraine without Ukraine.
Now the meeting has ended with the US leaving the negotiation up to Russia and Ukraine. Why hold that up against Russia?
There is no “the US perspective” or “EU perspective” here, it’s Ukraine’s sovereign power to do as they see fit, you seem to either be completely unknowing of the russian invasion or just trolling.
That’s why the EU shouldn’t make statements that suggest otherwise.
What about taking your own advice and shut it?
Soon. So you don’t have a counter argument?
Trump said it’s up to Zelensky because this idiot achieved nothing for Ukraine. Russia offers capitulation to Ukraine - exchange territory Ukraine controls for a ceasefire. It puts Ukraine in a worse position than before and makes it easier for russia to take Ukraine later.
Ceasefire, because “long lasting peace” being based on agreement with russia, and either this agreement gonna be unique agreement, the one they aren’t gonna break unilaterally as they did with all agreements before, or, more likely, it’s a waste of paper.
Without Ukraine being in some military alliance that requires boots on the ground means russia will break it. Military assurances Trump is proposing to Ukraine are basically the same level of help we took for granted from Biden admin. And again, not like USA has a history of being fair in promises given to Ukraine, see Budapest memorandum.
It, *meaning Budapest, was assurance, not guarantee, with explicit notes that stressed that the English meaning was relevant. No diplomat could have expected more.
The sad thing is that the public was kept in the dark.
But even if you look at Nato, there is no requirement for boots on the ground.
*edit
It says guarantees in each version but English, and it states nowhere that English is the main document and the rest are translations. All the versions have equal strength.
Besides, even if there are no guarantees, it doesn’t make USA look better for forcing Ukraine to sign off a deal that left Ukraine defenseless under the threats of global isolation.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-ukraine-give-nukes-russia-us-security-guarantees-1765048
The interesting part is that Ukraine kept pushing forward after they found out. Which shows that it doesn’t matter how the USA looks.
Literally from your article:
USA actions in the 90s caused this war today. If those politicians didn’t try to “reset the relationships with russia” at the cost of Ukraine, russians wouldn’t dare to launch the full scale invasion.
The USA could have given guarantees after the reset failed. The USA don’t seem to care about looks.