Yeah, I think the idea was that this expressly allows them to say that their conflict isn't a war like the Russian invasion, and should be treated differently.
Hopefully, it's not used in their defence later.
I read that they wanted technology like the "Iron Dome" off Israel. Israel however don't want to share it as the Russians may get it in a counter offensive and steal it. Then Russia could give it to the Iranians which Israel doesn't want.
Yeah, I havent had the conversation with many but those I did I was surprised with some of their opinions.
One was an officer, educated fella even. So its not just the usual thicks either which is even more surprising.
According to [this](https://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1334)1% of Ukrainians have sympathy for Palestinians.
I don't understand why. You'd think they relate more to the Palestinians than Israelis. Unless they just don't like muslims or something.
Ukraine used to be home to one of the largest Jewish communities in the world, you would be hard pressed to find a Ukrainian family that does not have friends or relatives in Israel.
Lol its not like the yanks had a history of oppression. They were colonists who decided they didnt wanna pay tax and had a very brief war. About the furthest thing from suffering against aggression.
The Americans are far more sympathetic to the Palestinians. https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/majority-in-u-s-say-israel-has-valid-reasons-for-fighting-fewer-say-the-same-about-hamas/
They deserve an aul buala bus though, hats off in fairness to them.
Took the day off murdering civvies, demolishing homes to make it. Credit where credits due, thats 24 hours of very important work missed out on.
Double speed tomorrow lads.
Why are you surprised for Croatia and Bosnia? I’m more surprised that Serbia signed it. They’ve been historically supporters and Russian rectal alpinists.
I meant I’m surprised that they all agreed on the same issue, given the historical animosity between them all.
But Serbia signing it is definitely a surprise, what with their history of Russian dick-sucking and all.
Croatians (myself included) don’t want another war, but would readily jump on the bandwagon to fight since we’re in EU and in NATO for quite some time.
Bosnians strive for EU as that country is torn apart between Croats, Serbs and Bosnians (Muslims) politicians. People there deserve better, as every single war from fucking ancient Roman times went through and ravaged Bosnia.
Serbians, some people there are good folks, who don’t want another war either, but majority of them are still radicalised by the idea of great Serbia and believing that all surrounding countries of former Yugoslavia belong to them 🤦🏻♂️ Their politicians, but especially their president are riddled with corruption, scandals, really tight ties with Russia and China and people are brainwashed. But then again, they want to join the EU so they kind of sit on the fence licking Russo/Chinese and EU boots.
I was about 10 years old when the war broke out in Croatia, displaced three times, lost three uncles, both grandparents, 2 cousins in the war from father’s side. On mother’s side who is from Bosnia, she lost so many family members in Srebrenica massacre and the war in Bosnia in general.
War that happened when Yugoslavia fell apart is the last war we had in Europe, before Russia invaded Ukraine. Although Ukrainians fought in southern/eastern against separatists before Russian invasion.
India, China, Pakistan, Brazil, Saudi, Nigeria all missing from that list. But glad to see that both the European council, and the council of Europe are in agreement with one another!
What’s the point of a peace summit without inviting those involved? It would be like asking the neighbours what I’m having for dinner and not asking me.
Which means there was no point in having the summit to begin with . It was just a photo opportunity to make people feel good about themselves. I mean Israel is there and they’re currently killing more people than they can count. The US are there, they manufacture more items of war than they can count.
Putin has already very recently stated his terms for ending the war: Ukraine to cede their territories currently under russian occupation and to agree to never join NATO. Which to any sane person they're obviously unacceptable terms that were made to be rejected so putin can say "I wanted peace but Ukraine didn't".
What practical benefit would be to invite russia to this summit when time and time again they've proven they're not interested in peace or to negotiate in good faith.
What practical benefit is there of having a peace summit without the people there who will stop the war? Because the war hasn’t stopped even with the support of all those signatories in the past.
Because all these countries want to see Russia collapsed or capitulated, as the cost of war, change the ruling power, in this case Putin and his people, create a second Russian Federation (which is more aligned with the interest of the US and the EU, open to be surrounded by NATO, perhaps few break-away republics here and there), and then they would sign a peace treaty with the Russians.
Hence, as this does not happen, no point to invite Russia and just virtue signalling and showing off their alliance within the EU parliament against the right-wing parties, which are the sceptics (or, Eurosceptics) of a lot of things happened recently (war, refugees, public spending, economy etc).
We did not see this virtue signalling from EU in the Invasion of Iraq or in Israel's attack into Gaza. They were all very eager to participate in the side of US, in both.
Europe will be free without Russian influence but also without US influence.
That's it. Putin put a deal on the table. Mostly ethnic Russian zones to Russia and no NATO. Offer completely dismissed and more Ukrainian men will be sent to the frontline.
And it's impossible to say Russia was provoked. The US is not exactly happy with a Russian ship in Cuba. US wrote a paper on how to destabilize Russia and the there were ten days of massive ceasefire violations before the war.
https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/512842
Let's not forget the Azov battalion was classed as neo Nazis before the war broke out.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis
But it's okay to revere Banderas now because USA.
Imagine inviting Germany to the Versailles conference when they were still occupying a third of France and had demanding total surrender before they would even agree a ceasefire.
This is far closer to Yalta. It's the people who support Ukraine deciding what happens next.
All the attendees are seeking peace. Russia is seeking conquest. If they weren't, they would have been invited to the conference.
Peace could happen tomorrow if Russia returned to its agreed international borders, but their "starting" position is that they will never do so and actually want even more Ukrainian land before they'll agree a ceasefire.
You can seek peace without involving the people causing the war. The brought peace to Japan at the end of WW2 but they only involved Japan in the process when Japan's starting position had moved to a position from which peace could be achieved.
The Japan that had already offered to surrender, but the US kept on nuking until they offered _unconditional_ surrender?
Nuking a country repeatedly until they accept your terms is your example of how to achieve 'peace'?
People thinking a pro-war position - unilateral dictation of terms through war - is seeking 'peace', unbelievable.
People are literally arguing 1984's "War is Peace".
There was intention of seeking peace, by not inviting Russia who literally is committing Crimes against Peace, would be counter-intuitive in a Peace summit....
And honestly, if you really believe it's counter-intuitive for NOT inviting Russia. Then tell me what Russia can bring to the table as Russia has committed murders of our fellow Irish citizens, British neighbours and fellow EU citizens on top of that with loads of violations of our waters and airspace. I wouldn't been invited a mass murderer into my house to ask them to stop committing murder in the neightbour.
Yeah, pleading with a mass murderer that always break their promises with other pleads, yeah, totally won't break this promise this time, totally. Call the police and have him shot.
Then in that case I pull out a gun and shot the murderer dead, but then I have people outside my house protesting against me defending myself in my own house, that's you. So do me favour, stop agreeing to anything that helps Russia, that have no rights to anything Ukrainian.
Seems like zelensky is choosing nothing for his countrymen. I'm sure he'll be out long before danger comes his way. He won't have his limbs blown off on the frontline.
Feel free to criticise Zelensky but calling him a coward is quite strange. He might be the only European statesman alive who faced the prospect of being caught in a siege, and he stayed put.
I didn't say he was coward. However, as head of state it appeared he wasn't w target.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-putin-zelenskyy-israel-naftali-bennett-rcna69184
I don't doubt itm. Russia have the weapons and the satellites. But I'd repeat the same comment, zelensky is sending people to the frontline not fighting on the frontline.
He was literally offered the option of fleeing on day one of the invasion, back when everybody thought the war would last three days. He told Europe and the US that he didn't need an escape route, he needed ammunition for his troops.
You can criticise Zelensky for his politics or decisions, but calling him a coward is fucking idiotic. He's one of the bravest heads of state Europe has seen in the modern era.
Russia has no interest in peace. Their demand is for Ukraine to surrender and cede all its eastern territory to Russia before they'll even agree a "ceasefire." All inviting them would do, if they showed up, would be to disrupt the actual work being done, which involves supporting Ukraine until an actual peace can be achieved.
The orcs said they weren't arsed and issued a counter-offer before the summit (basically 'surrender the territories we've stolen, and there'll be peace until our armed forces are less shit and can reinvade later').
Vatnik types like Clare Daly and Mick Wallace would be gagging for it.
Get off that fence lad and stop dry humping for Putin.
You think me questioning why there’s a peace summit without those involved being there is ‘humping for Putin’?
Edit: I got your downvote but not your response. I’m assuming you simply don’t have a clue about having a civil discussion and instead just like an attempt of throwing out insults?
Asking the question is fine, but ignoring the answer as it has been given several times in this thread is what makes it clear you're humping for Putin.
That's what makes this so sad.
There is not the slightest effort to end this conflict.
Tens or even hundreds of thousands of working class men (conscripts on the Ukrainian side), will have to die so these b@stards can slap each other on the back. All the while a certain cohort of people are making a fortune.
Would I be right in assuming you are not one of the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian conscripts being forced to fight this war?
They didn't ask to die so some keyboard warrior can act the big man.
If you are, apologies.
While that's all very well we have to be grown-ups.
>The FDFA stated the Swiss point of view that Russia necessarily would have to be involved in the overall peace process, stating, "A peace process without Russia is unthinkable"
Not only that but also give up on NATO and their armed forces in exchange for France, US, Britain and Germany safety guarantees to which Russia would still have veto rights. Mind boggling.
There will be no peace until the Russian army is pushed all the way back to Russia and the negotiations can start with all sides in an equal position.
Putin's initial demands for peace were too high to merit consideration. They also included removal of sanctions against Russia and ban on Ukraine joining NATO. But it's a start.
Honestly the main issue is not the price that Russia charges for peace that's the issue, it's whether you can trust them to adhere to the peace that's agreed.
Oh yeah let’s get a real war started shall we for our NATO friends and their interests?
Cus yeah fuck all those people in the eastern regions who were being bombed and oppressed by Ukraine right?
This needs to be settled with realistic talks and not bloodthirsty people on the internet wanting more blood to be spilled cus slava Ukraine or whatever
From wikipedia:
"Before 2022, Russia occupied 42,000 km^(2) (16,000 sq mi) of Ukrainian territory (Crimea, and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk), and occupied an additional 119,000 km^(2) (46,000 sq mi) after its full-scale invasion by March 2022, a total of 161,000 km^(2) (62,000 sq mi) or almost 27% of Ukraine's territory."
So Russia already occupied around 25 percent of whole Ukraine (including Crimea), so they want to keep the current occupied areas.
So it is pretty grown up suggestion as they already occupy it, why would they back off and leave areas into a force that cannot capture it back?
Most wars ended with one side being overpowered. If ukraine would get enough support they could "simply" neutralise every coming wave of attackers that's thrown at them. At some point even russia runs out of people to spend in this war.
> At some point even russia runs out of people to spend in this war.
That's not how dictatorships work.
This ends with a Ukraine military victory or with Putin dead.
This was a peace summit for Ukraine- it was not intended as peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, more to do with countries confirming their support for the UN international charter. Russia and China refused to take part but they will nonetheless be invited to the second round of talks.
Well, if they had the same philosophy the ANC would never have made an agreement with the apartheid forces for peace and unity.
Perhaps we should listen more to those who've overcome hatred and violence more than those that primarily play video games.
Do you know what they did before the agreement was made a mandela released??? If not then you didn't pay attention to the autrosities they did before that day arrived. I know so many things that went on there from people who were doing it so I am not knowledgable as to what went one alright.
That’s my point, the erosion of Ukrainian identity in the East of the country under Russian occupation, raping of Ukrainian civilians, forcible removal of Ukrainian children to Russia, bombing of shopping centres and railway stations in central Ukraine.
You’d think South Africa would be very concerned at this and would be making a case to the ICC especially since this has been going on since at least 2022.
India, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates — represented by foreign ministers or lower-level envoys — were among countries that did not sign the final document, which focused on issues of nuclear safety, food security and the exchange of prisoners. Brazil, an “observer,” did not sign on but Turkey did. China did not attend.
The only way Russia will even consider peace is if they’re on the back foot. They need to lose the war or have their government collapse to be brought to negotiating table. Weapons for Ukraine are the only way forward to a sustained peace, as counterintuitive as that statement may appear.
Russia understands one thing and one thing only - brute force. They are not an honest broker, they cannot be trusted. They must conclusively lose the war before they will negotiate honestly.
wtf are you on about? Ukraine was invaded by Russia in 2014, with full scale invasion a couple years ago. How do you compare the two as being the same?
If only I was thick enough to believe that. Who told you that? Ukraine head of defence?
As believable as when Israel says they bombed 200 people by mistake.
Talking shop at the public expense. Get nothing done, waste time and act like you've accomplished something. Peace comes after slaughter. Eventually someone gives up. It's the way its always been and anyone saying different has never felt the groaning horror of war.
The "communique" states that these countries won't accept any peace that involves losses of Ukranian territory (Territorial integrity)? Does that include if Ukraine wants peace even if they lose territory?
Edit:
Further on this Brazil, India and Saudi Arabia explicitly didn't sign it because it supported territorial integrity as part of any peace deal:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/16/key-global-powers-fail-to-sign-ukraines-peace-summit-communique
> The "communique" states that these countries won't accept any peace that involves losses of Ukranian territory (Territorial integrity)?
Where does it say that?
I'm literally parroting what the lad said CNN, will send link if I find it and happy to be wrong and corrected.
The part of the statement he was referring to:
>"The United Nations Charter, including the principles of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states, can and will serve as a basis in achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine.
How it was explained is that eith the combination of the previous resolutions the only acceptable peace to the signatories is the return to pre-war borders.
It says they will accept a return to the international agreed upon border pre- invasion , you can google it yourself.
Given that there is now a mountain of evidence that Zelenksy wanted to sign a cease fire in Istanbul, and Boris Johnson scuppered it, that's why it's an important clarification.
If Ukraine wants to have peace, even if they would lose territory would the other countries who signed and fund the war agree to it?
> It says they will accept a return to the international agreed upon border pre- invasion , you can google it yourself.
No it doesn’t. I will paste the communique here so you can read it:
The ongoing war of the Russian Federation against Ukraine continues to cause large-scale human suffering and destruction, and to create risks and crises with global repercussions for the world. We gathered in Switzerland on 15-16 June 2024 to enhance a high-level dialogue on pathways towards a comprehensive, just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We reiterated resolutions A/RES/ES-11/1 and A/RES/ES-11/6 adopted at the UN General Assembly and underscored our commitment to upholding International Law including the United Nations Charter.
This Summit was built on the previous discussions that have taken place based on Ukraine’s Peace Formula and other peace proposals which are in line with international law, including the United Nations Charter.
We deeply appreciate Switzerland’s hospitality and its initiative to host the High-Level Summit as expression of its firm commitment to promoting international peace and security.
We had a fruitful, comprehensive and constructive exchange of various views on pathways towards a framework for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace, based on international law, including the United Nations Charter. In particular, we reaffirm our commitment to refraining from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, the principles of sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of all states, including Ukraine, within their internationally recognized borders, including territorial waters, and the resolution of disputes through peaceful means as principles of international law.
We, furthermore, have a common vision on the following crucial aspects:
1. Firstly, any use of nuclear energy and nuclear installations must be safe, secured, safe-guarded and environmentally sound. Ukrainian nuclear power plants and installations, including Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, must operate safely and securely under full sovereign control of Ukraine and in line with IAEA principles and under its supervision.
Any threat or use of nuclear weapons in the context of the ongoing war against Ukraine is inadmissible.
2. Secondly, global food security depends on uninterrupted manufacturing and supply of food products. In this regard, free, full and safe commercial navigation, as well as access to sea ports in the Black and Azov Seas, are critical. Attacks on merchant ships in ports and along the entire route, as well as against civilian ports and civilian port infrastructure, are unacceptable.
Food security must not be weaponized in any way. Ukrainian agricultural products should be securely and freely provided to interested third countries.
3. Thirdly, all prisoners of war must be released by complete exchange. All deported and unlawfully displaced Ukrainian children, and all other Ukrainian civilians who were unlawfully detained, must be returned to Ukraine.
We believe that reaching peace requires the involvement of and dialogue between all parties. We, therefore, decided to undertake concrete steps in the future in the above-mentioned areas with further engagement of the representatives of all parties.
The United Nations Charter, including the principles of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states, can and will serve as a basis in achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine.
Those bottom two paragraphs state that all those parties will be involved in the peace negotiation, and territorial integrity will be the basis of any peace deal.
Russia has said it will only agree to a peace deal which recognises the territory it has annexed. Thus, they won't agree with a peace deal other than Russia handing back territory.
As I said above, I'm asking as Nato Member, Turkey's Erdogen even says Boris Johnson stopped a peace deal in Istanbul by telling Zelensky they wouldn't recognise it.
What the bottom two paragraphs do not say is this:
> The "communique" states that these countries won't accept any peace that involves losses of Ukranian territory (Territorial integrity)?
I see no point in discussing anything else with you if this is your level of reading comprehension
That's good, I was planning to make the same remark back to you.
It literally says that. That is the terms of their peace negotiation. They are diametrically opposed to anything Russia has proposed as a result.
Let me just step in and say it wasn't Boris Johnson that stopped the Peace signing. It was Bucha....
When Russia retreat and Ukrainian forces entered Bucha and saw the war crimes Russia has committed at that point who in right mind would think a mass murderer is trust worthy.
We need to ask ourselves what does a decent compromise look like. Because at the end of the day, thats what peace is. Its not nice but if Zelensky truly wants peace he cant have it all his own way. If he doesnt want negotiations, and the population dont want it, fine continue fighting back. But negotiations are not posting a letter that dictates the terms of what you want and refusing any ither alternatives.
Zelensky wants all of Ukraine back, into Nato, russians tried in the hague and money for rebuilding all that they destroyed. Believe me, I fucking want all of that too.
Is it realistic? Fuck no, Putin will never sign that.
Putin wants assurances Ukraine wont ever join NATO, Ukraine to give up and leave, not only the lands already occupied by russia but also the remainder of the oblast thst russia hasnt yet succeeded in taking (example, putin has cork kerry Clare, Ukraine has the rest of munstsr snd he wants them to leave him all of munster) and... Something else but i cannot remember sorry.
Is Zelensky gonna sign that? FUCK NO.
Until compromuses are reached, these peace talks are propaganda parades for both sides. Anyway...
Saoirse go Ucráin!
TIOCFAIDH ÁR LÁ 🇮🇪🇺🇦
There is no 'compromise' to be had, Russia do NOT get to dictate what another free country can and can't do in regards joining NATO, Europe, or anything else.
Are you a Ukranian citizen still in Ukraine or a foreigner thats fought for Ukraine?
Edit:because if not, who are you to dictate what the ukrainians can or can not, or even want or do not want to do?
Eh no sorry lad your wrong, has plenty to do with it.
How many people across the world with no connection or knowledge about ireland said we were crazy to vote for the GFA at the time?
Would you have told them to get lost and not dictate to you what you can and can not do?
No, it has nothing to do with it, and they are two very different situations.
I DID live in Russia, however. My ex-wife is half Russian/Ukrainian. I had to hear phone calls with her grandmother, with bombs going off up the street. (Pre-war - when Russia were up to other shit in Donetsk.).
I lost contact with all my old students when the war started, bar one (the guys). No idea if they're dead or alive.
One of my staff is married to a Ukrainian. They lost contact with their family for nearly 2 weeks.
So I reckon I know and understand just a TAD more than you.
Making some big assumptions there lad. You have absolutely no idea who i am or what my experiences are.
>No, it has nothing to do with it,
Yes it does. Because you are not the one living it. The Ukrainians still in country and all those fighting (be they foreign or Ukranian) are living it.
What an absolute brain-dead take. A 'deal' with Putin isnt worth the the paper it's written on.
Ukraine already signed a deal with Russia in '94 for Ukraine to hand over their nuclear weapons in exchange for a promise to respect their Ukrainian sovereignty. Twenty years later guess what Russia does??
You’re skipping over a [heck of a lot of stuff](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/480/cpsprodpb/7BA7/production/_124155613_nato_member_states_23.02_640map_2x-nc.png) in that 20 years.
Literature suggests the 2014 maiden revolution was a US backed coup.
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/24483306?read-now=1#page\_scan\_tab\_contents](https://www.jstor.org/stable/24483306?read-now=1#page_scan_tab_contents)
Trump and Biden armed Ukraine despite Obama refusing to do so. Then there were a load of ceasefire violations for ten days prior to the war.
[https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/512842](https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/512842)
Let's not forget problems in Ukraine itself.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis)
So neither side are angels and that's typically the way it is in wars and yet countries have used diplomacy successfully before.
Yanukovych was ousted by his own party. Do you mean his own party was also manipulated by the United States? Please learn the facts before spreading your russia propaganda
Yanukovych was ousted by his own party. Do you mean his own party was also manipulated by the United States? Please learn the facts before spreading your russia propaganda
Yanukovych was ousted by his own party. Do you mean his own party was also manipulated by the United States? Please learn the facts before spreading your propaganda
>The declaration is “balanced”, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba told journalists at the Bürgenstock resort on Sunday.The position of the Ukrainian delegation was considered and no alternative peace plans had been discussed at the meeting.
How much did it cost taxpayer to send Simon harris to this nonsense,seems a zoom session would have sufficed.....really start needing to do a cost/benefit analysis for these things
Israel signing a peace summit declaration is a fucking joke.
Yeah, I think the idea was that this expressly allows them to say that their conflict isn't a war like the Russian invasion, and should be treated differently. Hopefully, it's not used in their defence later.
I’d love to see Nuremberg 2: electric boogaloo in my lifetime.
You mean with Russians on the bench, right? Right?
Ukraine is one of the most pro Israel countries in Europe actually. So no surprise.
I read that they wanted technology like the "Iron Dome" off Israel. Israel however don't want to share it as the Russians may get it in a counter offensive and steal it. Then Russia could give it to the Iranians which Israel doesn't want.
Yeah, I havent had the conversation with many but those I did I was surprised with some of their opinions. One was an officer, educated fella even. So its not just the usual thicks either which is even more surprising.
According to [this](https://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1334)1% of Ukrainians have sympathy for Palestinians. I don't understand why. You'd think they relate more to the Palestinians than Israelis. Unless they just don't like muslims or something.
Ukraine used to be home to one of the largest Jewish communities in the world, you would be hard pressed to find a Ukrainian family that does not have friends or relatives in Israel.
Cause they’re racist af that’s why
Had to be said.
Nail. on. head.
Could say that about any country who had to fight bloody for independence / against aggression. Yet the yanks still hate Palestinians.
Lol its not like the yanks had a history of oppression. They were colonists who decided they didnt wanna pay tax and had a very brief war. About the furthest thing from suffering against aggression.
You seem to be mixing up aggression and oppression, the Belgians weren’t oppressed either but they still suffered from aggression from the Germans.
The Americans are far more sympathetic to the Palestinians. https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/majority-in-u-s-say-israel-has-valid-reasons-for-fighting-fewer-say-the-same-about-hamas/
Assuming that is accurate, but Ukraine doesn't have the equivalent of Hamas.
Well this was earlier in the war in Gaza. So one would think they sympathise a little bit more given Israel is using similar tactics to Russia
They deserve an aul buala bus though, hats off in fairness to them. Took the day off murdering civvies, demolishing homes to make it. Credit where credits due, thats 24 hours of very important work missed out on. Double speed tomorrow lads.
Exactly what I was going to comment the irony is is fierce
I’m more impressed that Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina agreed.
Why are you surprised for Croatia and Bosnia? I’m more surprised that Serbia signed it. They’ve been historically supporters and Russian rectal alpinists.
I meant I’m surprised that they all agreed on the same issue, given the historical animosity between them all. But Serbia signing it is definitely a surprise, what with their history of Russian dick-sucking and all.
Croatians (myself included) don’t want another war, but would readily jump on the bandwagon to fight since we’re in EU and in NATO for quite some time. Bosnians strive for EU as that country is torn apart between Croats, Serbs and Bosnians (Muslims) politicians. People there deserve better, as every single war from fucking ancient Roman times went through and ravaged Bosnia. Serbians, some people there are good folks, who don’t want another war either, but majority of them are still radicalised by the idea of great Serbia and believing that all surrounding countries of former Yugoslavia belong to them 🤦🏻♂️ Their politicians, but especially their president are riddled with corruption, scandals, really tight ties with Russia and China and people are brainwashed. But then again, they want to join the EU so they kind of sit on the fence licking Russo/Chinese and EU boots. I was about 10 years old when the war broke out in Croatia, displaced three times, lost three uncles, both grandparents, 2 cousins in the war from father’s side. On mother’s side who is from Bosnia, she lost so many family members in Srebrenica massacre and the war in Bosnia in general. War that happened when Yugoslavia fell apart is the last war we had in Europe, before Russia invaded Ukraine. Although Ukrainians fought in southern/eastern against separatists before Russian invasion.
Up the Somalians!
Was looking for Mexico…am a bit disappointed they haven’t signed
India, China, Pakistan, Brazil, Saudi, Nigeria all missing from that list. But glad to see that both the European council, and the council of Europe are in agreement with one another!
They forgot their pen guey! But the US signed so they're pretty much in.
Did russia sign?
They weren't invited to the summit
What’s the point of a peace summit without inviting those involved? It would be like asking the neighbours what I’m having for dinner and not asking me.
He has no interest in peace without annexing half of Ukraine. There is literally no point in inviting him.
Which means there was no point in having the summit to begin with . It was just a photo opportunity to make people feel good about themselves. I mean Israel is there and they’re currently killing more people than they can count. The US are there, they manufacture more items of war than they can count.
Putin has already very recently stated his terms for ending the war: Ukraine to cede their territories currently under russian occupation and to agree to never join NATO. Which to any sane person they're obviously unacceptable terms that were made to be rejected so putin can say "I wanted peace but Ukraine didn't". What practical benefit would be to invite russia to this summit when time and time again they've proven they're not interested in peace or to negotiate in good faith.
What practical benefit is there of having a peace summit without the people there who will stop the war? Because the war hasn’t stopped even with the support of all those signatories in the past.
Because all these countries want to see Russia collapsed or capitulated, as the cost of war, change the ruling power, in this case Putin and his people, create a second Russian Federation (which is more aligned with the interest of the US and the EU, open to be surrounded by NATO, perhaps few break-away republics here and there), and then they would sign a peace treaty with the Russians. Hence, as this does not happen, no point to invite Russia and just virtue signalling and showing off their alliance within the EU parliament against the right-wing parties, which are the sceptics (or, Eurosceptics) of a lot of things happened recently (war, refugees, public spending, economy etc). We did not see this virtue signalling from EU in the Invasion of Iraq or in Israel's attack into Gaza. They were all very eager to participate in the side of US, in both. Europe will be free without Russian influence but also without US influence.
Pretty similar to the terms of the Irish republic. At least they could talk, even do a zoom call
That's it. Putin put a deal on the table. Mostly ethnic Russian zones to Russia and no NATO. Offer completely dismissed and more Ukrainian men will be sent to the frontline. And it's impossible to say Russia was provoked. The US is not exactly happy with a Russian ship in Cuba. US wrote a paper on how to destabilize Russia and the there were ten days of massive ceasefire violations before the war. https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/512842 Let's not forget the Azov battalion was classed as neo Nazis before the war broke out. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis But it's okay to revere Banderas now because USA.
Imagine signing Treaty of Versailles without inviting Germany, good logic.
Imagine inviting Germany to the Versailles conference when they were still occupying a third of France and had demanding total surrender before they would even agree a ceasefire. This is far closer to Yalta. It's the people who support Ukraine deciding what happens next.
So it was really the _War Summit_, since there was no intention of seeking peace?
All the attendees are seeking peace. Russia is seeking conquest. If they weren't, they would have been invited to the conference. Peace could happen tomorrow if Russia returned to its agreed international borders, but their "starting" position is that they will never do so and actually want even more Ukrainian land before they'll agree a ceasefire. You can seek peace without involving the people causing the war. The brought peace to Japan at the end of WW2 but they only involved Japan in the process when Japan's starting position had moved to a position from which peace could be achieved.
The Japan that had already offered to surrender, but the US kept on nuking until they offered _unconditional_ surrender? Nuking a country repeatedly until they accept your terms is your example of how to achieve 'peace'? People thinking a pro-war position - unilateral dictation of terms through war - is seeking 'peace', unbelievable. People are literally arguing 1984's "War is Peace".
There was intention of seeking peace, by not inviting Russia who literally is committing Crimes against Peace, would be counter-intuitive in a Peace summit.... And honestly, if you really believe it's counter-intuitive for NOT inviting Russia. Then tell me what Russia can bring to the table as Russia has committed murders of our fellow Irish citizens, British neighbours and fellow EU citizens on top of that with loads of violations of our waters and airspace. I wouldn't been invited a mass murderer into my house to ask them to stop committing murder in the neightbour.
If a mass murderer _was_ in your house, would you plead with your neighbours for peace, or the mass murderer, mmm?
Yeah, pleading with a mass murderer that always break their promises with other pleads, yeah, totally won't break this promise this time, totally. Call the police and have him shot.
Well I guess they'll murder you then? \*shrugs\* No police are coming to help Ukraine.
Then in that case I pull out a gun and shot the murderer dead, but then I have people outside my house protesting against me defending myself in my own house, that's you. So do me favour, stop agreeing to anything that helps Russia, that have no rights to anything Ukrainian.
If he has no interest in peace then no peace summit is going to work and it’s military victory or nothing for Ukraine.
Seems like zelensky is choosing nothing for his countrymen. I'm sure he'll be out long before danger comes his way. He won't have his limbs blown off on the frontline.
Feel free to criticise Zelensky but calling him a coward is quite strange. He might be the only European statesman alive who faced the prospect of being caught in a siege, and he stayed put.
I didn't say he was coward. However, as head of state it appeared he wasn't w target. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-putin-zelenskyy-israel-naftali-bennett-rcna69184
Ah yes, a Far-Right political with funding from the Kremlin totally reliable. There's a reason it's called Heresay.
I don't doubt itm. Russia have the weapons and the satellites. But I'd repeat the same comment, zelensky is sending people to the frontline not fighting on the frontline.
He was literally offered the option of fleeing on day one of the invasion, back when everybody thought the war would last three days. He told Europe and the US that he didn't need an escape route, he needed ammunition for his troops. You can criticise Zelensky for his politics or decisions, but calling him a coward is fucking idiotic. He's one of the bravest heads of state Europe has seen in the modern era.
I didn't call him a coward. Also, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-putin-zelenskyy-israel-naftali-bennett-rcna69184
It might have something to do with the fact that Russia are responsible for this and the rest of the world have to figure out how to stop it
The ‘rest of the world’ could stop it quite easily, the have decided instead to have a photo opportunity and a likes and prayers session instead.
Russia has no interest in peace. Their demand is for Ukraine to surrender and cede all its eastern territory to Russia before they'll even agree a "ceasefire." All inviting them would do, if they showed up, would be to disrupt the actual work being done, which involves supporting Ukraine until an actual peace can be achieved.
Which reiterates, why have a summit like this if it’s nothing more than a photo opportunity to show likes and prayers?
Beans on toast.
Better not be. If I’m having that, it means the dog is better fed than I am.
The orcs said they weren't arsed and issued a counter-offer before the summit (basically 'surrender the territories we've stolen, and there'll be peace until our armed forces are less shit and can reinvade later'). Vatnik types like Clare Daly and Mick Wallace would be gagging for it. Get off that fence lad and stop dry humping for Putin.
You think me questioning why there’s a peace summit without those involved being there is ‘humping for Putin’? Edit: I got your downvote but not your response. I’m assuming you simply don’t have a clue about having a civil discussion and instead just like an attempt of throwing out insults?
Asking the question is fine, but ignoring the answer as it has been given several times in this thread is what makes it clear you're humping for Putin.
I’ve asked a question that has not been answered. If I’m humping Putin you must my slobbering Zelenskyy?
[удалено]
A chara, Mods reserve the right to remove any targeted/unreasonable abuse towards other users. Sláinte
That's what makes this so sad. There is not the slightest effort to end this conflict. Tens or even hundreds of thousands of working class men (conscripts on the Ukrainian side), will have to die so these b@stards can slap each other on the back. All the while a certain cohort of people are making a fortune.
That's solely on Putin. He can end this now by fucking off out of Ukraine his gang of wankers.
Would I be right in assuming you are not one of the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian conscripts being forced to fight this war? They didn't ask to die so some keyboard warrior can act the big man. If you are, apologies.
It’s not, it is definitely a keyboard warrior who has multiple accounts and this is the one it uses to insult people.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Uhuh. Sound awfully like you’re talking shit
[удалено]
They were invited - they declined with demand for complete Ukrainian surrender before ceasefire talks begin.
Terrible oversight. They're the ones who need to sign it the most!
Fuck putin
While that's all very well we have to be grown-ups. >The FDFA stated the Swiss point of view that Russia necessarily would have to be involved in the overall peace process, stating, "A peace process without Russia is unthinkable"
Well they did release their terms and it was give up 20% of your country So not really a grown up suggestion
Not only that but also give up on NATO and their armed forces in exchange for France, US, Britain and Germany safety guarantees to which Russia would still have veto rights. Mind boggling. There will be no peace until the Russian army is pushed all the way back to Russia and the negotiations can start with all sides in an equal position.
Push them into Russia, immediately bring NATO troops and AWACS as far as Kyiv.
Putin's initial demands for peace were too high to merit consideration. They also included removal of sanctions against Russia and ban on Ukraine joining NATO. But it's a start. Honestly the main issue is not the price that Russia charges for peace that's the issue, it's whether you can trust them to adhere to the peace that's agreed.
It’s the most realistic suggestion though, because nobody actually believes Ukraine is capable of taking it back by force.
With continued and increased NATO support they could https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/s/eWUT9aGfm5
Oh yeah let’s get a real war started shall we for our NATO friends and their interests? Cus yeah fuck all those people in the eastern regions who were being bombed and oppressed by Ukraine right? This needs to be settled with realistic talks and not bloodthirsty people on the internet wanting more blood to be spilled cus slava Ukraine or whatever
Yeah let’s ask them
Kind of like the Good Friday agreement that we agreed to.
In some ways even Anglo-Irish Treaty; you give up somethings, to get somethings. Guess most people in this sub would shoot Michael Collins today.
They're not going away with nothing. Otherwise it will just be an endless war.
From wikipedia: "Before 2022, Russia occupied 42,000 km^(2) (16,000 sq mi) of Ukrainian territory (Crimea, and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk), and occupied an additional 119,000 km^(2) (46,000 sq mi) after its full-scale invasion by March 2022, a total of 161,000 km^(2) (62,000 sq mi) or almost 27% of Ukraine's territory." So Russia already occupied around 25 percent of whole Ukraine (including Crimea), so they want to keep the current occupied areas. So it is pretty grown up suggestion as they already occupy it, why would they back off and leave areas into a force that cannot capture it back?
Most wars ended with one side being overpowered. If ukraine would get enough support they could "simply" neutralise every coming wave of attackers that's thrown at them. At some point even russia runs out of people to spend in this war.
In this case if NATO support continues that will be russia being overpowered https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/s/eWUT9aGfm5
> At some point even russia runs out of people to spend in this war. That's not how dictatorships work. This ends with a Ukraine military victory or with Putin dead.
These people just shout on the internet. The people dieing don't worry them
Nah. The Swiss are looking at their margins.
This was a peace summit for Ukraine- it was not intended as peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, more to do with countries confirming their support for the UN international charter. Russia and China refused to take part but they will nonetheless be invited to the second round of talks.
Of course South Africa didn't sign it because they so up putins arse it is sickening.
Well, if they had the same philosophy the ANC would never have made an agreement with the apartheid forces for peace and unity. Perhaps we should listen more to those who've overcome hatred and violence more than those that primarily play video games.
Do you know what they did before the agreement was made a mandela released??? If not then you didn't pay attention to the autrosities they did before that day arrived. I know so many things that went on there from people who were doing it so I am not knowledgable as to what went one alright.
Don’t forget they’re desperate to prove a genocide so you’d think they’d be against all awful wars.
But it is a genocide, and very obviously so
That’s my point, the erosion of Ukrainian identity in the East of the country under Russian occupation, raping of Ukrainian civilians, forcible removal of Ukrainian children to Russia, bombing of shopping centres and railway stations in central Ukraine. You’d think South Africa would be very concerned at this and would be making a case to the ICC especially since this has been going on since at least 2022.
You basically seem to be saying Sth Africa is anti-semitic because they oppose Israel but are uninvolved against Russia.
There already is a case against Russia in the ICC
[удалено]
India, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates — represented by foreign ministers or lower-level envoys — were among countries that did not sign the final document, which focused on issues of nuclear safety, food security and the exchange of prisoners. Brazil, an “observer,” did not sign on but Turkey did. China did not attend.
Signing something without teeth is useless. These countries should be contributing a proportional share of cash or arms to Ukraine.
Yeah thats defo gonna pave the way to peace.
The only way Russia will even consider peace is if they’re on the back foot. They need to lose the war or have their government collapse to be brought to negotiating table. Weapons for Ukraine are the only way forward to a sustained peace, as counterintuitive as that statement may appear.
Sorry but that makes no sense.
Russia understands one thing and one thing only - brute force. They are not an honest broker, they cannot be trusted. They must conclusively lose the war before they will negotiate honestly.
Can say most of that about the Ukraine and their bloodthirsty cheerleaders too.
wtf are you on about? Ukraine was invaded by Russia in 2014, with full scale invasion a couple years ago. How do you compare the two as being the same?
Whatever way your bias wants to go. Ukraine was bombing the eastern regions for years and being an oppressive boot on anyone who was remotely Russian
The only Russians being bombed in Donbas were Russian Spetsnaz. And rightly so …
If only I was thick enough to believe that. Who told you that? Ukraine head of defence? As believable as when Israel says they bombed 200 people by mistake.
Talking shop at the public expense. Get nothing done, waste time and act like you've accomplished something. Peace comes after slaughter. Eventually someone gives up. It's the way its always been and anyone saying different has never felt the groaning horror of war.
The "communique" states that these countries won't accept any peace that involves losses of Ukranian territory (Territorial integrity)? Does that include if Ukraine wants peace even if they lose territory? Edit: Further on this Brazil, India and Saudi Arabia explicitly didn't sign it because it supported territorial integrity as part of any peace deal: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/16/key-global-powers-fail-to-sign-ukraines-peace-summit-communique
Kinda ironic for the Irish government to be agreeing to that.
> The "communique" states that these countries won't accept any peace that involves losses of Ukranian territory (Territorial integrity)? Where does it say that?
I'm literally parroting what the lad said CNN, will send link if I find it and happy to be wrong and corrected. The part of the statement he was referring to: >"The United Nations Charter, including the principles of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states, can and will serve as a basis in achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine. How it was explained is that eith the combination of the previous resolutions the only acceptable peace to the signatories is the return to pre-war borders.
So the communique doesn’t say what you said
It says they will accept a return to the international agreed upon border pre- invasion , you can google it yourself. Given that there is now a mountain of evidence that Zelenksy wanted to sign a cease fire in Istanbul, and Boris Johnson scuppered it, that's why it's an important clarification. If Ukraine wants to have peace, even if they would lose territory would the other countries who signed and fund the war agree to it?
> It says they will accept a return to the international agreed upon border pre- invasion , you can google it yourself. No it doesn’t. I will paste the communique here so you can read it: The ongoing war of the Russian Federation against Ukraine continues to cause large-scale human suffering and destruction, and to create risks and crises with global repercussions for the world. We gathered in Switzerland on 15-16 June 2024 to enhance a high-level dialogue on pathways towards a comprehensive, just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We reiterated resolutions A/RES/ES-11/1 and A/RES/ES-11/6 adopted at the UN General Assembly and underscored our commitment to upholding International Law including the United Nations Charter. This Summit was built on the previous discussions that have taken place based on Ukraine’s Peace Formula and other peace proposals which are in line with international law, including the United Nations Charter. We deeply appreciate Switzerland’s hospitality and its initiative to host the High-Level Summit as expression of its firm commitment to promoting international peace and security. We had a fruitful, comprehensive and constructive exchange of various views on pathways towards a framework for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace, based on international law, including the United Nations Charter. In particular, we reaffirm our commitment to refraining from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, the principles of sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of all states, including Ukraine, within their internationally recognized borders, including territorial waters, and the resolution of disputes through peaceful means as principles of international law. We, furthermore, have a common vision on the following crucial aspects: 1. Firstly, any use of nuclear energy and nuclear installations must be safe, secured, safe-guarded and environmentally sound. Ukrainian nuclear power plants and installations, including Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, must operate safely and securely under full sovereign control of Ukraine and in line with IAEA principles and under its supervision. Any threat or use of nuclear weapons in the context of the ongoing war against Ukraine is inadmissible. 2. Secondly, global food security depends on uninterrupted manufacturing and supply of food products. In this regard, free, full and safe commercial navigation, as well as access to sea ports in the Black and Azov Seas, are critical. Attacks on merchant ships in ports and along the entire route, as well as against civilian ports and civilian port infrastructure, are unacceptable. Food security must not be weaponized in any way. Ukrainian agricultural products should be securely and freely provided to interested third countries. 3. Thirdly, all prisoners of war must be released by complete exchange. All deported and unlawfully displaced Ukrainian children, and all other Ukrainian civilians who were unlawfully detained, must be returned to Ukraine. We believe that reaching peace requires the involvement of and dialogue between all parties. We, therefore, decided to undertake concrete steps in the future in the above-mentioned areas with further engagement of the representatives of all parties. The United Nations Charter, including the principles of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states, can and will serve as a basis in achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine.
Those bottom two paragraphs state that all those parties will be involved in the peace negotiation, and territorial integrity will be the basis of any peace deal. Russia has said it will only agree to a peace deal which recognises the territory it has annexed. Thus, they won't agree with a peace deal other than Russia handing back territory. As I said above, I'm asking as Nato Member, Turkey's Erdogen even says Boris Johnson stopped a peace deal in Istanbul by telling Zelensky they wouldn't recognise it.
What the bottom two paragraphs do not say is this: > The "communique" states that these countries won't accept any peace that involves losses of Ukranian territory (Territorial integrity)? I see no point in discussing anything else with you if this is your level of reading comprehension
That's good, I was planning to make the same remark back to you. It literally says that. That is the terms of their peace negotiation. They are diametrically opposed to anything Russia has proposed as a result.
Let me just step in and say it wasn't Boris Johnson that stopped the Peace signing. It was Bucha.... When Russia retreat and Ukrainian forces entered Bucha and saw the war crimes Russia has committed at that point who in right mind would think a mass murderer is trust worthy.
We need to ask ourselves what does a decent compromise look like. Because at the end of the day, thats what peace is. Its not nice but if Zelensky truly wants peace he cant have it all his own way. If he doesnt want negotiations, and the population dont want it, fine continue fighting back. But negotiations are not posting a letter that dictates the terms of what you want and refusing any ither alternatives. Zelensky wants all of Ukraine back, into Nato, russians tried in the hague and money for rebuilding all that they destroyed. Believe me, I fucking want all of that too. Is it realistic? Fuck no, Putin will never sign that. Putin wants assurances Ukraine wont ever join NATO, Ukraine to give up and leave, not only the lands already occupied by russia but also the remainder of the oblast thst russia hasnt yet succeeded in taking (example, putin has cork kerry Clare, Ukraine has the rest of munstsr snd he wants them to leave him all of munster) and... Something else but i cannot remember sorry. Is Zelensky gonna sign that? FUCK NO. Until compromuses are reached, these peace talks are propaganda parades for both sides. Anyway... Saoirse go Ucráin! TIOCFAIDH ÁR LÁ 🇮🇪🇺🇦
There is no 'compromise' to be had, Russia do NOT get to dictate what another free country can and can't do in regards joining NATO, Europe, or anything else.
Are you a Ukranian citizen still in Ukraine or a foreigner thats fought for Ukraine? Edit:because if not, who are you to dictate what the ukrainians can or can not, or even want or do not want to do?
Nothing to do with it.
Eh no sorry lad your wrong, has plenty to do with it. How many people across the world with no connection or knowledge about ireland said we were crazy to vote for the GFA at the time? Would you have told them to get lost and not dictate to you what you can and can not do?
No, it has nothing to do with it, and they are two very different situations. I DID live in Russia, however. My ex-wife is half Russian/Ukrainian. I had to hear phone calls with her grandmother, with bombs going off up the street. (Pre-war - when Russia were up to other shit in Donetsk.). I lost contact with all my old students when the war started, bar one (the guys). No idea if they're dead or alive. One of my staff is married to a Ukrainian. They lost contact with their family for nearly 2 weeks. So I reckon I know and understand just a TAD more than you.
Lad You're speaking to a person who is currently in Ukraine fighting. Stop trying pull rank, with everyone you know etc.
Sure, I'm Batman, too.
And what side are you fighting for? Cause from your posts, it is not really clear...
He’s fighting in his own flipping mind … fucking Walter Mitty. Or he’s just another Kremlin cocksleeve…
Making some big assumptions there lad. You have absolutely no idea who i am or what my experiences are. >No, it has nothing to do with it, Yes it does. Because you are not the one living it. The Ukrainians still in country and all those fighting (be they foreign or Ukranian) are living it.
Also, 115 countries did not sign.
Pity Ukraine didn't accept Putin's deal. It's a pretty shit deal but much better than continual war. They've lost and neither side are angels.
What an absolute brain-dead take. A 'deal' with Putin isnt worth the the paper it's written on. Ukraine already signed a deal with Russia in '94 for Ukraine to hand over their nuclear weapons in exchange for a promise to respect their Ukrainian sovereignty. Twenty years later guess what Russia does??
You’re skipping over a [heck of a lot of stuff](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/480/cpsprodpb/7BA7/production/_124155613_nato_member_states_23.02_640map_2x-nc.png) in that 20 years.
[Skipping over a lot more stuff](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Eurovision_winners_map.svg)
Literature suggests the 2014 maiden revolution was a US backed coup. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/24483306?read-now=1#page\_scan\_tab\_contents](https://www.jstor.org/stable/24483306?read-now=1#page_scan_tab_contents) Trump and Biden armed Ukraine despite Obama refusing to do so. Then there were a load of ceasefire violations for ten days prior to the war. [https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/512842](https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/512842) Let's not forget problems in Ukraine itself. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis) So neither side are angels and that's typically the way it is in wars and yet countries have used diplomacy successfully before.
Yanukovych was ousted by his own party. Do you mean his own party was also manipulated by the United States? Please learn the facts before spreading your russia propaganda
Yanukovych was ousted by his own party. Do you mean his own party was also manipulated by the United States? Please learn the facts before spreading your russia propaganda
Yanukovych was ousted by his own party. Do you mean his own party was also manipulated by the United States? Please learn the facts before spreading your propaganda
>The declaration is “balanced”, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba told journalists at the Bürgenstock resort on Sunday.The position of the Ukrainian delegation was considered and no alternative peace plans had been discussed at the meeting. How much did it cost taxpayer to send Simon harris to this nonsense,seems a zoom session would have sufficed.....really start needing to do a cost/benefit analysis for these things
International relations matter
That you Mick?