US ambassador: I quit Ukraine because Trump is ‘complicit’ with Russia

Posted by Exastiken@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 40 comments

[-]

PipingTheTobak@reddit

"Its my job to carry out the president's foreign policy even if I disagree with it. BUT I disagree with it, so I can't support it."

Ok. Seems a little hypocritical but ok.

Ngl, our Ukrainian ambassador being a karen might explain a lot of our success thus far. Was her plan to keep yelling at the Russian ambassador until he gave her store credit?

[-]

kimchifreeze@reddit

How is it hypocritical to have a limit to what you tolerate?

[-]

PipingTheTobak@reddit

She's been with the state department for 30 years, and this is where she draws a line?

[-]

BehemothDeTerre@reddit

Abandoning an ally to side with an imperialist, damaging the interests of the country she represents in the process? Seems like a fine line to draw.

[-]

BehemothDeTerre@reddit

You probably won't accept the Budapest memorandum, maybe you'll accept the treaty your cheeto in chief just signed with them?

[-]

PipingTheTobak@reddit

That is also not a treaty, but a bilateral agreement signed by the executive branch. Treaties are ratified by the Senate. The president cannot make a treaty on his own, nor has he in this case

[-]

BehemothDeTerre@reddit

"You're only allied with our executive branch, not legislative!"

Is that the excuse you want to give to the Ukrainians?

Additionally, your president has been taking over legislative duties for a while, now.

[-]

PipingTheTobak@reddit

It's not an alliance. Its exchanging money in the form of arms for mineral rights.

I dont particularly care what the Ukranians think. Im interested in the interests of the United states.

Additionally, your president has been taking over legislative duties for a while, now.

Everyone loves the imperial presidency until its someone they dont like.

Fine then. If Trump has taken on the ability to make treaties, he also has the ability to break them, so I presume yoh won't complain if he changes his mind.

[-]

Skyrmir@reddit

We have a treaty to provide security in exchange for their nuclear weapons.

[-]

PipingTheTobak@reddit

No, we dont.

The Budapest memorandum is not a treaty and it does not confer any new legal obligations for signatory States. It was written in a way to avoid an impression of legal obligation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

Treaties are ratified by the United States senate. If you want a treaty, get the senate it to ratify it

[-]

textandstage@reddit

At abandoning an ally in their time of need?

While facing the worst European tyrant since Stalin or Hitler?

Seems reasonable to me…

[-]

PipingTheTobak@reddit

They're not an ally. They're a charity case

[-]

textandstage@reddit

They’re the vanguard against Russian expansionist policy, and are dying in droves for the sake of western civilizations (including their own.

We’re getting ample return on our investment.

[-]

Jesus Christ. Tell us more about how much you hate the "asiatic hordes"? Are you going to call them "huns" next and say that they need to be exterminated to get you more "living space" for your lovely "western civilization"?

[-]

Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit

say that they need to be exterminated to get you more "living space" for your lovely "western civilization"?

No, that's what Russia is trying to do now

[-]

Glass-Shock5882@reddit

No, no, you misunderstand, Lebenraum only applies to the West. Like Imperialism only does, they all apparently use Lenin's word salad of a definition for Imperialism so it's not particularly shocking.

What Germany did in 1930s and 40s? Lebensraum.

What Russia did in the same time period? Freeing the masses from Capitalism(tm).

Let's ignore of course Eastern Europe, in particular Russia, extended Feudalism longer and had a more brutal version than Western Europe. Russia is a Saint. They only do these things due to ebul Westerns. Czar Putin is only reacting to NATO, he has no individual agency of course, he has to it. Woe is Vladdy.

[-]

Glass-Shock5882@reddit

Yes, and?

[-]

Poop_Scissors@reddit

Supporting Russia who are openly acting against US interests? Yeah that's a pretty good place to draw the line.

[-]

PipingTheTobak@reddit

I missed the billions in military aid we gave to Russia.

Look, Im all for rah rah rah to rally the proles, but you dont really believe all that shit do you? Ukraine was useful. Now its not.

[-]

Poop_Scissors@reddit

Why is Ukraine not useful any more? Can you think of a better way of completely crippling Russia?

[-]

imunfair@reddit

Ngl, our Ukrainian ambassador being a karen might explain a lot of our success thus far.

The lack of success is mostly due to not acknowledging what Russia has said they want, and making silly offers like a 30 day ceasefire before peace negotiations, a move that hurts Russia and helps Ukraine, or wanting to freeze the lines exactly where they are even though Russia has the momentum.

Our requests are tantamount to an administration not wanting to admit we lost, and looking for an exit ramp to call it a draw, rather than looking for a solution that makes sense for Russia to stop.

That's why there's been no success - they've been very clear that they intend to finish this once and for all, either via a client state arrangement or by actually taking all of Ukraine. The US trying to pretend that everyone wins is never going to fit into any of the scenarios Russia finds acceptable, unless they can force Ukraine to take the deal that was just offered in Turkey.

I don't think Zelensky will do that even if we threaten to pull all support though, he's still counting on European support that will never come, but it will be enough of a carrot that he'll fight long enough for the current offer to expire.

[-]

Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit

"Its my job to carry out the president's foreign policy even if I disagree with it. BUT I disagree with it, so I can't support it." Ok. Seems a little hypocritical but ok.

How is that hypocritical? If your disagreements reach a point where you can't execute anymore you're supposed to quit. She did exactly what she was supposed to do.

Ngl, our Ukrainian ambassador being a karen might explain a lot of our success thus far. Was her plan to keep yelling at the Russian ambassador until he gave her store credit?

What do you think ambassadors do?

[-]

Sqweech@reddit

How dare she have ethical principles! What a Karen. lmao.

[-]

valentc@reddit

Ok. Seems a little hypocritical but ok

Or it just reached a point where she had to leave and speak up. There was just a line she personally had, and didn't want to cross. It's not hypocritical. Trump doesn't care about the US or Ukraine, so she left.

Ngl, our Ukrainian ambassador being a karen might explain a lot of our success thus far.

How the hell is calling out the President for being buddy buddy with Russia while abandoning Ukraine being a Karen?

Was her plan to keep yelling at the Russian ambassador until he gave her store credit

Oh, you don't think Russia is the pressure here. Makes sense.

[-]

Chroma_primus@reddit

He quit and openly comunicated why He did it what about that is hypocritical. Trumps aproch of negotiating wirh Putin has him playing Santa klaus and giving him everything that He wants.

[-]

Philaorfeta@reddit

Nothing but respect for her and her principles

[-]

PreviousCurrentThing@reddit

President Trump’s policy of applying “pressure on the victim” of the Ukraine war lay behind the US ambassador’s decision to quit Kyiv after three years in the role, she said on Friday.

She's a Biden appointee. Given Trump's clear indication that he wanted to move in a different direction vis-a-vis Russia/Ukraine, I'm somewhat surprised she wasn't replaced already.

She's had an interesting career. She was in Belgrade in '99, Tblisi in '08, and gets tapped for the Ukraine ambassadorship months after the Russians invade. I wonder if she collects a paycheck from any agency other than State.

[-]

Tinhetvin@reddit

Wait, so who exactly would be paying her? Is her being in Belgrade, Tblisi and now Ukraine indicative she had something to do with all those? Or that she is the go to as an ambassador to conflict ridden nations?

[-]

PreviousCurrentThing@reddit

Career state department official is a common cover for clandestine CIA officers. When the war in Ukraine went hot in '22, it would make sense for the US to have someone with that type of experience running the embassy. It could also explain why she was held on as long as she was, if her role was as much operational as it was diplomatic.

I noted the other two dates after a quick look at her wiki, as they happen to correspond to some of the most significant events in NATO/Russia relations since the end of the Cold War, and in each case she was there prior to the fireworks kicking off, so to speak.

Could very well be mere coincidence and I'd guess it probably is, but still funny to me at least.

[-]

Tinhetvin@reddit

I see. Thanks for the info.

[-]

andr386@reddit

Come on, don't interrupt the conspiracy theorists with reasonable arguments.

[-]

gunnesaurus@reddit

Someone definitely paid her to write this. A book deal is probably incoming on why she decided to joy mention Russia in that one tweet announcement.

[-]

Tinhetvin@reddit

May I ask what you're suggesting? Is it being claimed that she is a Russian plant, and only pretends to be pro Ukrainian? Who paid her to write this, specifically? Im really not following, so im genuinely asking.

[-]

gunnesaurus@reddit

She eventually resigned and explained her reasoning. When she worked for Trump, her public messaging and Statements were Trumpian. She was quiet after the Oval Office meeting. Now she will write books and make media appearances.

[-]

Nevarien@reddit

she collects a paycheck from any agency other than State.

She smells like a hawk, talks like a hawk, and looks like a hawk, so she probably does.

[-]

empleadoEstatalBot@reddit

US ambassador: I quit Ukraine because Trump is ‘complicit’ with Russia

President Trump’s policy of applying “pressure on the victim” of the Ukraine war lay behind the US ambassador’s decision to quit Kyiv after three years in the role, she said on Friday.

Bridget Brink said she brought an end to her 30-year diplomatic career because she could “no longer in good faith carry out the administration’s policy” and issued a call for America to “show leadership in the face of aggression, not weakness or complicity”.

Brink’s first public statement since she resigned last month comes at a delicate stage in Trump’s peace initiative after President Putin failed to show up in Turkey to negotiate with his Ukrainian counterpart, President Zelensky, days after calling for direct talks.

Trump has responded by declaring that no further progress can be made in the peace process until he talks face to face with Putin himself.

“I respect the president’s right and responsibility to determine US foreign policy ― with proper checks and balances by US Congress,” Brink wrote in the Detroit Free Press, in her home state of Michigan. “It is the role of America’s foreign service to execute that policy.

“Unfortunately, the policy since the beginning of the Trump administration has been to put pressure on the victim, Ukraine, rather than on the aggressor, Russia. As such, I could no longer in good faith carry out the administration’s policy and felt it was my duty to step down.”

Brink said she could not “stand by”, as she suggested were her new instructions from Washington, “while a country is invaded, a democracy bombarded and children killed with impunity”.

In a criticism of Trump’s approach to his peace initiative, in which he has berated Zelensky in the Oval Office while repeatedly refusing to criticise Putin, she urged the administration to “stand up for democracies and to stand against autocrats” as “the only way to secure US interests”.

“Peace at any price is not peace at all ― it is appeasement,” she said. “History has taught us time and again that appeasement does not lead to safety, security or prosperity. It leads to more war and suffering.”

Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy meeting in the Oval Office.

Trump berated Zelensky in the Oval Office in February. They had a more amicable meeting at Pope Francis’s funeral last month, below

SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Photo of Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky seated during Pope Francis's funeral.

Brink listed the toll of Russian aggression, including 700 children among thousands of civilians killed and 20,000 children abducted since it launched its offensive in February 2022, describing it as “pure evil”.

“Over a career spent in conflict zones, I’ve seen mass atrocities and wanton destruction first-hand but we have never seen violence so systematic, so widespread and so horrifying in Europe since World War II,” she wrote.

“If we allow Putin to redraw borders by force, he won’t stop with Ukraine … Russia’s war is about more than foreign policy or economics. It’s about who we are. The US must lead the free world.”

• William Hague: Trump still buys Putin’s picture of innocence

She recalled the three years her grandfather spent away from home fighting the Second World War in Europe. “The America I love, the one our grandparents served, would never stand by and let such horrors happen. Or give up helping our friends. Or appease the aggressor,” she concluded.

“We must show leadership in the face of aggression, not weakness or complicity. When America does not lead the free world, what is at risk is our own success as a nation.”

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink meeting with Ukrainian officials.

Brink in September with Antony Blinken, President Biden’s secretary of state

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Brink earned a reputation in Kyiv as a tough operator who took flak from senior Ukrainians over President Biden’s slow release of advanced weaponry and also for insisting on domestic reforms to counter corruption and the siphoning off of funds.

When Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of state, praised his angry treatment of Zelensky in the Oval Office in February, Brink dutifully reposted her new boss’s post in Ukrainian and was bombarded with criticism.

The final straw may have been a second post on X of her own after a Russian attack on Zelensky’s home city of Kryvyi Rih, which caused the single heaviest loss of civilian life this year. “Horrified that tonight a ballistic missile struck near a playground and restaurant,” she wrote. “More than 50 people injured and 16 killed, including six children. This is why the war must end.”

Zelensky responded critically in his nightly address over her failure to attribute the bombing to Russia. “Such a strong country, such a strong people — and such a weak reaction. They are even afraid to say the word ‘Russian’ when talking about the missile that killed children,” he said.

Tammy Bruce, a spokeswoman for the state department, later said she was “not aware” of any instruction to Brink to tone down references to Russian aggression and “wouldn’t speak to anything regarding … a diplomat and the internal dynamics that might occur”. Brink resigned a few days later.

Maintainer | Creator | Source Code
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot

[-]

coverageanalysisbot@reddit

Hi empleadoEstatalBot,

We've found 29 sources (so far) that are covering this story including:

Meduza (Left): "The Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Bridget Brink, Stated that She Had Resigned because of the Trump Administration's Policy of Pressuring the Victim (Ukraine) Rather than the Aggressor (Russia)"
The Times (Center): "US ambassador: I quit Ukraine because Trump is ‘complicit’ with Russia"
Protothema (Right): "Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Resigns over Disagreement with Trump's Policies"

Of all the sources reporting on this story, 40% are right-leaning, 40% are left-leaning, and 20% are in the center. Read the full coverage analysis and compare how 29+ sources from across the political spectrum are covering this story.

I’m a bot. Read here to learn how it works or message us with any feedback so we can improve the bot for you.

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.