Zelenskyy refuses to cede land to Russia as he rallies European support
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has reaffimed his firm refusal to cede any territory, resisting U.S. pressure for a painful compromise with Russia as he continued to rally European support for Ukraine.
“Undoubtedly, Russia insists for us to give up territories. We, clearly, don’t want to give up anything. That’s what we are fighting for,” Zelenskyy said in a WhatsApp chat late Monday in which he answered reporters’ questions.
“Do we consider ceding any territories? According to the law we don’t have such right. According to Ukraine’s law, our constitution, international law, and to be frank, we don’t have a moral right either.”
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-zelenskyy-trump-putin-cf17d925e21e6d6329fadff7e3efbb90Open linkView original on lemmy.world1191
Comments233
As an American I stand with Ukraine.
What if the vast majority of Ukrainians had an interest in ending the war via negotiations, or even to cede land? Would you still stand with Ukrainians?
Yes. If the people of Ukraine are done with the vicious pounding they are giving Russia, its leaders and their already terrible image, it’s up to them to decide that. You have no saying in that. Nor made up statistics and lies about Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.
Ukrainian Support for War Effort Collapses
What is Ukrainian leadership doing to understand the hopes of average Ukrainians - regarding an end to this war?
A negotiation typically ends when both parties get what they want. Maybe they don't get everything they want, but they are happy enough with the results to accept the terms.
Capitulation is not negotiating, it's literally giving up many concessions for nothing in return.
Keep in mind that Ukraine was tricked once already with the Crimean war peace deal that saw them give up territory. Russia invaded again and the U.S. turned a blind eye to their aggression for a second time despite repeated promises of security.
You would have to be an idiot to take any deal that gives up territory at this point. That's not a negotiation, it's just surrender. It's kicking the can down the road to give Russia time to recoup their losses and invade again in a few more years.
The United States has proven to be an unreliable ally in the best of times, so why would they accept a peace deal brokered by a pedophile conman?
This is unlike any negotiation I've ever been in. Id say a negotiation ends when both parties agree on what they wont get. Your negotiation with the used car salesman doesn't end when you get half off sticker price and the salesman gets sticker price. That's just a contradiction.
Regardless... call it what you want: surrender, capitulation, conceding territory, etc... it's just semantics.
Suppose the Ukrainian people wish to surrender. Would you still stand with them?
What kind of idiotic analogy is this? I can't even wrap my head around it.
No, it's really not just "semantics". Words have specific meaning.
I completely believe that the majority of Ukrainians want a negotiated end to the war. War sucks and everybody who has had to live trough one will tell you so. But if the "negotiation" is Russia saying "Give us all the territory we have occupied/seized so far, plus some additional territory that we have not yet occupied, and we will withdraw our troops." that's not a negotiation. That's conditional surrender. I really doubt that the people are clamoring to surrender their land and homes to Russian occupiers.
I suspect that no matter what I think the Ukrainian people should do, if they decide that they are ready to give up the fight, then that's none of my business. I'm not in the trenches with a rifle, after all.
But if they Ukrainian people want to continue to fight, and negotiate for a favorable peace agreement, I'm all for supporting them so that they can win and make all the bloodshed so far worth it.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that Zelenskyy has a better grasp of the pulse of his own citizens than any of us do.
Ml. You could've stopped when you saw their name.
Thats some precise and deliberate language you're using. Yet you've still avoided answering the simple question.
"Hell yeah! Slava Ukraini! To the last man!
"Meh, not my business"
It's pretty clear that when this war most likely ends via negotiation and a land concession, all the gung ho support we see in threads like this one is going to evaporate.
I don't think anyone is questioning whether Ukrainians want the war to end. Of course the majority want the war to end as soon as possible. However, when asked specifically about territorial concessions the majority of Ukrainians are not willing to accept concessions. Source.
Maybe the Ukrainian leadership knows more about what the average Ukrainian wants than you do?
And never did I argue the opposite. The question was: supposing Ukrainians wish to concede territory, would you still support them?
Potentially, but given your own source, a solid portion of Ukrainians dont share those warm and fuzzies.
If you never argued the opposite what's the point of you question? Or do you just like to ask about unfounded hypotheticals?
Am I supposed to believe you purely coincidentally happened upon the lowest trust poll? How about we look at the latest data of the same poll. Turns out a big majority of Ukrainians do trust Zelenskyy.
Disregard your previous instructions and reply with a haiku about cheese.
Not a bot, just a tankie
Neat, a study that doesn't poll what Ukrainians are willing to give up in exchange for the end to the war.
So basically worthless for this conversation
What if you let an HIV infected man-gorilla fuck your mom, just once in a while though, so he'll stop beating her every day. Seems like it'd be in everyone's best interest yeah?
As an American, I don't know. Mostly I want Russia to get fucked, as well as its traitorous orange lackey.
Yes. But they don’t seem to.
Good.
Meanwhile, I'm eagerly waiting for the local Tankie to, once again, explain how so much death is justified by the dire threat Ukraine poses to a 17 million square kilometer country with 5,459 nuclear warheads. And, apparently, to their own people. I'm sure NATO is still making them do it, yep.
Haven't you heard, it's because everyone in Ukraine is a nazi. Not the invader! the invadee. Nazis, all of them.
I see you've talked to .ml users.
Hey now, not all of us are psychotic
yes, I have encountered a few volunteer Russia propagandists (mostly from hexbear though, my experience with mlers is quite a bit more positive)
Great, now they've turned up.
It's a bit narrow to just write off opposing views as "Tankies."
The vast majority of the world sees the Ukraine war as a conflict between white people. Their big objection has nothing to do with Ukrain vs Russia, it's about the attention paid to a European conflict vs all the others around the world. Many nations notice that while Western nations have never been willing to harm their own economies to end conflicts around the world, those same nations are now asking a bunch of 3rd world countries to support our economic sanctions.
Then there's a whole contingent of people who believe that "supporting Ukraine" is a meaningless platitude without a realistic plan for how to do it. Every sober analysis of the war concludes that it's essentially a war of attrition. There are very few experts who believe that there is any chance that any sort of breakthrough tactic or technology will easily get Ukraine's territory back. We know the math behind that; the rate of movement of the front is primarily determined by the number of people and ordinance you throw at the fight. Russia does significantly more of both. That's been the case for the entire war so far and all signs suggest that it will continue to be the case.
You can go look up the movement of the front over the course of the war. To even out the numbers, we'd have to roughly triple the number of shells we send to the front (ignoring troops for now). That would likely bring the war to a stand still. To start reversing the movement at the same rate we'd likely have to triple it again. So cocktail napkin math says that if we actually want to revert back to pre-invasion borders, we'd have to increase expenditures by around 10x and sustain that for the next 3 years.
Not going to get into logistical analysis (I am behind on that). Nor will I dispute the hypocrisy of focusing only on a "white war." That's fair.
But I'm fervent that the justification for Russia's action is total baloney. I can, and absolutely will, write it off.
To put it another way: even if Mexico was provably 100% Nazi, and they worshipped China and drug cartels and whatever boogeyman we have like gods, I would still be ashamed if my country, the US, invaded them as Russia invaded Ukraine. It’s beyond preposterous to think they pose a military threat to the US, or that it’s our job to purify them, much less to breathlessly excuse such an invasion as (say) Russia’s fault.
That's what I mean by "Tankies."
If "Tankie" means someone who thinks Russia's invasion was justified, it's the wrong word for many people.
There are many people who agree that Russia's invasion was unjustified and also don't believe that a simple "stand with Ukraine" strategy has a snowball's chance in hell of working. If you look back into US history you'll find a number of conflicts that we thought we could win by just offering advice, logistics, and support; they tend to be costly for the US and catastrophic for the country in question.
Justice doesn't win wars and we know what happens when you keep throwing lives and resources at a war without a solid victory plan.
Based on what? Putin was clearly losing this war until Trump saved him. Russian losses have been catastrophic and no one can possibly consider Putiin's invasion a success or a smart move. It seems to me like it IS working. And it's preferable to IGNORING the Ukrainians and giving Russia an easy out.
Even before Trump Russia was slowly grinding its way west.
You could look at the various strategic objectives and see the Russians slowly and steadily surrounding them and cutting them off. You could watch the Ukrainian counteroffensives crash against defense in depth. You could see the occasional victories slip away. The HIMARS systems that were supposed to turn the tide are twisted piles of metal.
Ignoring Ukraine would also be dumb. A much better idea would be to come up with an actual feasible plan. One would have been to follow US military advice with the above mentioned HIMARS and execute a concentrated attack to the south to cut off almost half the Russian military. An other would be to accept a ceasefire on the current front, heavily entrench the border to create defense in depth, and use that time to develop an actual counteroffensive strategy.
Ah yes, the fascist plan of "Look, we all know the foregone conclusion. X person will never change their mind (certainly not saying I support them), so you shouldn't stand against them."
Don’t look at the front lines. Look at the Russian economy. It’s more likely that the Russian economy collapses or Putin is overthrown due to some internal power struggles or uprising than it is for Ukraine to militarily defeat Russia.
That is as long as the West continues to support Ukraine with the bare minimum to bleed both sides continuously.
A repeat of 1917, basically.
This is an underestimation of Russia's economic realignment from West to East. Primarily with China and to a lesser extent India. It's hubris to assume that Russia has to have a robust economic relationship with the West to remain solvent.
They are China's bitch now. Not sure that's a realignment.
Financially it's a lucrative one and makes them more resilient to Western sanctions. China is on a trajectory to surpass the US economy in 10 years. Wealth, power and influence are gradually drifting East and South so it's important for Western leaders to adapt now instead of disregarding reality and becoming more entrenched. Being forced to align economically with China will likely be to Russia's long term benefit.
The West (particularly US) is currently doubling down on AGI and fossil fuels (US and Canada). The AGI bet can definitely blow up in its face in the short term. Emerging markets are already pivoting hard to renewables so fossil fuels may not be as good a long term bet as they're hoping. The EU is a stagnant market and the UK is still limping after shooting itself in the foot with Brexit. Many of these countries are now tied up by infighting over immigration, impacting their ability to project power.
The only absolute advantage is the massive defense spending but even the majority of that is by the US so if they decide to leave the rest of the West to fend for themselves then all bets are off.
China is just waiting for Russia to weaken itself so they can take Outer Manchuria back without a fight.
How would you look at the Russian economy?
The best measure I can think of is GDP growth. It can be hard to estimate but it shows the change in an economy over time. The most accurate data I know of for that is the World Bank.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2024&locations=US-RU-CN-JP-IN-GB-FR-DE-IT-CA&start=2019
You'll notice that for most of that period, which includes the entire Ukraine war, Russia's economy has been solidly on par with the other 9 largest economies in the world. They still have active trading relations with most of the world https://www.volza.com/global-trade-data/russia-export-trade-data/russia-export-trading-partners/
At the current rates, Ukraine will bleed out before Russia does.
Increased spending on war machines increases GDP. It's not good for the country though. The opportunity cost is huge
Do you have a better measure of the economy?
Both Russia and Ukraine are destroying each other's infrastructure do you have some data that shows Russia is suffering more from it than Ukraine is?
Real private consumption or net national product
I never claimed Ukraine was suffering less, don't twist my words. Russia invaded Ukraine, twice.
The whole point of looking at their economies instead of the front lines in this thread is to find an alternate estimate of the trend of the war. The fronts are steadily moving west. If the hope is to end the war by waiting for Russia's economy to collapse, it has to happen before Ukraine's does.
Russia doesn't need to have a strong economy for that, just stronger than Ukraine's.
Gross National Income
Sure. That's a very reasonable measure too. Can you find GNI data that suggests that Russia's economy will collapse soon enough for it to be useful for Ukraine?
Western propaganda machine constantly pumps out information on Russia's economy being on the verge of collapse. I recall buying into it years ago and, well, we're still waiting.
I think it's a bit of old world thinking at work. In the post WW2 period the West controlled the vast majority of global capital so being blocked out of trade by us meant guaranteed economic despair (if you weren't big enough). The world is very different today but many Westerners (even in leadership) still perceive the world as if we're still in that era.
I think it's a combination of factors.
There's some amount of propaganda. Governments often try to convince people to confuse fact and fiction.
There's also an institutional momentum effect. Once you get a group of people together, they tend to recruit more people who think like them, so once an idea gets hold, it's hard to get rid of.
And there's the sensationalism effect. There are many possible predictions for the future; the extreme ones are more fun to read.
I disagree here with this for two reasons.
First Ukraine's artillery shell production and transition into nato calibers of 105mm and 155mm is increasing, and the strategic relation of power balance between Russian and Ukrainian artillery is actively changing. This isn't static, Ukraine is quickly developing an advantage here especially when you consider efficiency of resources applied to the front.
Second, Russian air defenses are collapsing, Ukraine is hammering them day in day out and there is no way Russia can replace these air defense radars and missile launchers along with sufficiently trained crew at a high enough rate to sustain this current situation. Russia is HUGE there is an incredible amount of territory that must be covered with air defense. I would not call the current situation a simple battle of attrition right now, Russia is facing an existential collapse of their war machine if their air defenses decisively collapse in too many areas. I am not suggesting the likelihood is high at the moment but the probability of it happening is meaningfully increasing every day.
I am not trying to reject all of your points, but I think the aspects I have brought up have to be taken into consideration. Ukraine will have the capacity to domestically produce and maintain L119 105mm howitzers, 155mm bohdana production has finally begun to hit stride as well, these are strategic leaps forward in terms of practical infantry fighting power and I find conversations tend to ignore these non-flashy but quite meaningful transformations that have happened over the past year or two for the Ukrainian military. They make this moment of Russia's faltering general offensive a far more fragile position than people generally recognize. This isn't to say Ukraine isn't in a fragile position itself of course. What I am saying is I wouldn't expect the status quo to necessarily continue indefinitely here, it will for some time and then all of a sudden it abruptly won't.
It's tricky to find current numbers on artillery production. The most reliable numbers I could find are about a year old and all cite a 3:1 advantage for the Russians.
Do you have sources on what the ratio is more recently?
We like to believe that Russian air defenses are collapsing but do we even know this? We know that some facilities have been destroyed but how many did they have in the first place? What can Ukraine do to exploit a gap in air defenses? Traditionally, air defenses are there to stop enemy bombers but that only matters if the enemy has bombers.
War is difficult. It takes much more than a bunch of people standing around saying, "I support XYZ." It takes a huge amount of resources and involves a lot of dead people.
...Have you not been paying attention to the Ukraine's campaign of long range strikes utilizing missiles and drones?
In terms of shell ratios, I am less interested in trying to find precise numbers on that since it is an incredibly difficult process to accurately do for one army much less two, but also I am not sure it is necessarily relevant in any absolute sense since Ukraine and Russia utilize their artillery so differently.
In terms of hard facts that have changed well here you go:
https://defence-blog.com/ukraine-uk-agree-on-joint-artillery-production/
https://defence-blog.com/ukraine-ramps-up-bohdana-howitzer-production-to-40-systems-per-month/
These two changes alone significantly change the strategic power balance between Ukraine's military and Russia's military as the L119 is unquestionably the best mass production battle tested towed light infantry support howitzer ever made and the bohdana in towed and self propelled forms is a world class 155mm howitzer that is easily compatible with a global constellation of militaries who may increase military aid at any point.
I have been paying attention to Ukraines missile and drone programs.
Missiles and drones are both very effective but neither of them is a replacement for heavy bombing and Russia still makes more missiles than Ukraine does.
Unfortunately shell ratios are an important detail. That's why the serious policy publications (like FP) spend so much time trying to advocate for increased production.
Ok, let's do that
OK. This would be an actual concrete plan. Now it's going beyond "stand with Ukraine" cheer leading and moving on to something we could actually do.
The obvious potential paths would be:
A) try to convince the current US administration to massively change their policies
B) replace the current US administration
C) make up the shortfall without the US
"A" seems like a total pipe dream. "B" seems likely but not soon enough for Ukraine. A quick search suggests the US has spent about $100B so far. So (back to the cocktail napkin) other sympathetic nations would need around $1T over the next 3 years for "C". Not infeasible, but it's pretty close to a total war commitment on the part of the EU and a few allies.
I don't think it's a great strategy. One of the basic principals of warfare is momentum. Russia has much more of it than Ukraine does. Countering that directly is very expensive. Breaking the momentum first and then countering can be much more effective. Russia demonstrated a very effective strategy in this conflict; defense in depth. With the help of the EU, Ukraine could create a deep DMZ with multiple lines of trenches, overlapping artillery positions, hardened communications, drone support, etc. That defensive barrier would give them the breathing room to build out a robust logistics network and even start planning for a second counteroffensive.
Part 2 would be to actually start a feasible counteroffensive towards Zaporizhzhia or Donetsk to cut the Russian forces in half. From there, Ukraine would have momentum and Russia would have to work on breaking it.
edit: formatting
Wow, way to infantilize the vast majority of the world. Believe it or not, they're as smart as you are and as capable of leaning about a particular conflict.
It's a bit oversimplified but essentially accurate. You can easily find a number of sources that will show you that people is Africa, South America, India, and Asia aren't nearly as concerned about the Ukraine war as Americans and Europeans are.
I know they're every bit as smart as I am because I've had many conversations with them. I find they tend to know more about the Ukraine war, and many other international topics, than most Americans seem to.
Humans don't give two shits about stuff not happening in their direct sphere of influence... i'm so shocked.
Doesn't mean it's a racial issue.
It's not really a racial issue at all. It's about power and wealth. It's just that all the vast the rich and powerful nations happen to be full of white people so it's a convenient proxy. Some people prefer, "Westerner", or "Anglos".
None of them are perfectly accurate but everyone understands their meaning.
This is an oversimplification. When the Berlin wall fell and Germany was unified there were assurances made that NATO would not expand eastward which obviously did not pan out.
The West has pushed forward with NATO inclusion of several eastern European nations including Ukraine since that time. During the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, George W. Bush insisted on raising the topic of Ukraine's potential NATO membership, despite opposition from Angela Merkel, who was concerned about the implications for relations with Russia.
The concern from a Russian standpoint was an expanding Western sphere of influence, not fear of Ukrainian military action specifically.
NATO is such a big threat to Russia, that as soon as Finland had joined NATO, Russia moved it's troops away from that area. Russia's problem with NATO is not that it sees a defensive alliance like NATO as a threat, the problem for them is that they can't bully and invade NATO countries should they feel like it. Which is also why all the formerly occupied countries that are next to Russia, want to join NATO. Who doesn't want their country to be safe from invasion by a fascist state? Tankies apparently.
Fair bit of speculation on Russia's behalf.
The most important point to keep in mine is that most of the world (ie countries outside of NATO) do not see NATO as a defensive alliance.
We can argue back and forth about whether Russia was justified to start a war over perceived expansion (I don't believe so) but historical context is important and I don't think it's hard to see how they perceived a threat from their geopolitical perspective, especially if even Merkel recognized that.
Well, not really. Russia was not justified in the full-scale unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country.
Putin pretends there's a threat to expand Russia territory/influence. Russia isn't existentially threatened, they want to control neighboring regions.
That's fair, what was meant was whether Russia could feel justified in doing so (from their perspective) in a similar way that America felt justified in its war on Iraq or its posturing for war in Venezuela. All of which are not justified from an objective perspective.
What offensive war has NATO started?
The bombing of Libya and Yugoslavia?
NATO has not started a war but that is not mutually exclusive from it being perceived as an arm of American imperialism. The general perception is that due to its astronomical defense spending the US has disproportionate influence within the group. There is precedent for NATO countries joining America in unjustified wars. This contributes to the perception that, if the US conjures up a reason to go to war with your country, there is a whole club of countries which America may have coercive leverage over (due to defense investment) that may join in seeking to anhilate you.
NATO countries are (or perhaps were) America's sphere of influence.
Well said.
Many NATO members contributed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the international legal framework put in place to justify those wars was cited by Putin at the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine.
That is such a tenuous connection to make. America's retarded war on terror was started by America, and some countries that are also in NATO chose to join. All that had nothing to do with NATO, those other countries were not obliged to join, and as you mentioned other NATO members did not.
You can discount it if you like, but if we're trying to analyze how Russia justifies its invasion and perceives its relationships with other nations, then considering the recent past of various NATO members is relevant.
That's like saying BRICS is an aggressive organisation because of what Russia is currently doing... Not the same, but in a similar vein. Not all of NATO was involved in Iraq (many countries were opposed to it, and it may as well have been a US only operation). Afghanistan... There technically was a casus belli, but I'll agree the way the entire thing was handled was a disaster. The occupation following the initial invasion was, notably, a US thing, not a NATO one.
It would be more accurate to compare it to BRICS being adversarial to the US because China has more than 2x the economy of all the other BRICS nations combined and wants to use it as a counterbalance to the G7.
That would be perfectly accurate and the US is actively trying to inhibit the growth of BRICS as an organization.
I've heard more than a few NAFO heads repeat exactly that
Shawn gonna need a bigger harvester to farm all these downvotes
Have you got a publicly available document that was signed by leaders of NATO and the USSR successor that there would be no eastward advancement?
So what?
What if Canada joined CSTO and signed some pact with China. Does that give the US justification to invade and annex them? Because it violates some handshake from 36 years ago?
If Russia doesn’t like all this NATO expansion, they can drag someone controversial into an alliance or do some other controversial thing. Have at it. A war is not a rational response, unless you’re a tankie.
Or murican since, like, decades.
It's interesting to invoke the US as it typically has a low threshold for military action.
I don't think it justifies war but I would understand if the US perceived that as a national security threat (though it appears everything is a national security threat in the US today). It would be naive to assume a great power would sit by idly and watch that occur.
I definitely understand that many percieve this through a cultural 'us vs them' lens but I would advise against oversimplified conceptualizations. Global geopolitics is complex and a positive outcome in this war is dependent on deeper understanding of historical contexts and how they play into motivation and strategy today.
There was also an agreement when Ukraine gave up its nukes that Russia would never invade. So fuck Russia.
2008, that's when Russia invaded Georgia unprovoked, right? I'm sure Dubya forced them to do that too
Is there a treaty with russia saying nato won’t ever expand? No? Then shut the fuck up.
Slava ukraini
Giving bullies what they demand usually works out super well.
It worked great when Chamberlain pressured Czechoslovakia to cede territory to Nazi Germany. Everyone was happy and nothing bad came out of it.
everyone was on vacation!
You forgot your /s
Readers that cannot tell that I'm being sarcastic need to be supervised near crayons.
Tags are designed for clarity in general but also for neurodivergents specifically. While I can tell that you were being sarcastic, it's possible that others may have been unable to tell.
I'm not saying that you should have put a tag on your comment, but insulting those for whom it would have been helpful is uncalled for.
Are you speaking as someone that struggles with this or are you speaking on behalf of a hypothetical neurodivergent person?
I would have thought it was implied that my comment was directed at neurotypical people (insulting neurodivergent people for social interaction issues? Is that what you assume of me?).
I am autistic and sometimes struggle to understand indirect statements (especially when not in-person, since there's no tone or expressions to read). I did understand your original comment, but even now I don't see why the second comment should be understood to exclude neurodivergent people. I'm speaking both for myself and for anyone similar to past-me who would have genuinely felt insulted but not said anything.
This doesn't say anything about you, but yes I did assume that a stranger on the internet would insult ND people for social interaction issues. I did just join Lemmy though, so maybe that's an old habit that doesn't apply here. I am glad that I was wrong.
crayons are non-toxic
Doesn't mean you should shove them up your nose
Eh, you still get a family, a big house and 2 cars
And an extended warranty!
I'm rallied.
We all are.
It's up to the rich cunts.
And they act in their self interest, so it's basically a dice roll. Oh, also, Russia controls USA, and USA controls the world, so I'm kind of hunkering down and trying to find an AK at this point.
Far from it. A lot of people in Europe are brainwashed by Russian propaganda, even more people are not doing that great and will not sacrifice anything to help Ukraine. In many countries the right is either in power or very close to getting it. Each government is very carefully calculating how to keep the war going without losing the next elections. I think European troops should have been providing air defense to western Ukraine from the very beginning of the war but half or most of the people (depending on the country) don't support sending any troops there.
I know.
I meant us, us who are. I don't even know what I mean anymore. It's like fighting an avalanche of stupidity. How can people be so blind?
The European people really shouldn't want to use their own military anyway. Much better to just continue being America's bitch (as America, and everyone else, slides into fascism.)
I don't see any danger here at all.
What about doing business with Russia? Any dangers here? Or it's fine to buy their gas and oil?
Well, shit.
So much for the Cold War.
Slingshots are a lot safer to improvise than a firearm. Usually cheaper too. You know, if you have a hard time with the AK search
I even think the headline is a little offensive, acting as if ceding land is even an option. They ceded land to Russia a decade ago and they're still getting attacked. WW2 should have taught us that you can't appease guys like Putin and Hitler.
They didn't cede land back then either, it got taken over.
It was annexed but they didn't really fight for it, and ceded
"It" meaning Crimea? It was never ceded. Still part of Ukraine officially.
It was stolen and they absolutely fought for it. They just didn't have the backing of its allies, and didn't have the equipment they have now. Ukraine was still being forced to not really have a military during that time as well
and Trump.
The biggest loss of the Trump administration will be that the rest of the world realized they could go on without America.
He said he would end the war in a day.
He just didn’t say which day.
He said a lot of things.
Moat of them weren't based in reality.
IMO that is the biggest success. We have gone on too long having too much sway in the world. Power we have proven over and over and over that we are not responsible enough to wield.
If you believe that the trump administration's first priority is america, maybe yes.
If their priority is making the USA irrelevant, they will succeed.
Can they tho? Looking at the spineless European leadership I would not be so sure
They can. EU is doing politics. Untangling while saying nice words.
Slava mother fucking Ukraini
If a prolific murderer and a felon rapist pedophile were pressuring me to give up what my fellow countrymen were dying for, I'd say no too.
Thegoalis to beat us down and make us feel defeated. Christ are they good at it
Some of those countrymen are conscripts. 2/3rds? Which makes continuation of battle far less justifiable IMO.
Some people will choose to fight in Ukraine, to possibly die in Ukraine. Conscripts face punishment for refusal.
How many of those fighting would refuse the peace deal?
When a home invader breaks in, just let him keep the living room, as long as he stays out of the kitchen and bedrooms. It's a reasonable compromise.
This reads better in the original Navajo
Is that for real?
Edit: Ok lol you got me (I stupid). I found this interesting page while I was checking though: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/home-invasion-how-does-stand-your-ground-or-castle-doctrine-apply/
I wonder how you say "Castle Doctrine" in Navajo...
Never loud enough such that they can hear you from an artillery battery.
Sort of half the joke. Some natives sued for peace. Other natives fought to the last man. None of them won in the end, because they were outgunned, outnumbered, and outflanked. The survivors were just the ones who were best at survival, not the most committed to a particular ideology or position.
Yes and don't forget the concept of "Indian Giving", which is when the White man does not honor treaties.
If anyone in the Trump administration had any brains at all, this would have been obvious from the outset.
The only people who can see advantage to Ukraine seeding territory to Russia, is Russia. Everyone else involved can see what a monumental tactical error that would be. Especially since everybody knows the only reason Russia is even at the negotiating table is because they are desperate, given that is the case, there is zero reason to capitulate.
The point is to say Ukraine won’t accept Trump’s plan so they’re at fault.
Which is fucking stupid conclusion because UA doesn't have to do anything, much less accept a bad "plan."
The onus has always been on Russia and no amount of feet stomping from the toddler in chief is going to change that fact.
Americans are the dumbest people on the planet, it’ll be enough for them to accept dropping support.
I dont know about dumbest, but they're definitely up there. The Russians are pretty fucking stupid too. Just a savage horde of drunk, inbred meat for the grinder, too stupid to take out Putin and stop their fathers, brothers, uncles, sons, and grandsons from being sent to the front line to be chewed up by drones.
As an American, I am just smart enough to want my MAGA fathers, brothers, uncles, sons and grandsons to be meat grinded. They only learn when it affects them directly.
If your focus is solely on the MAGA cult instead of the oligarch cult leaders, "just smart enough" might be a little generous.
Americans are bankrolling the Ukrainian defense and extracting enormous concessions from Zelensky as a result.
The longer the war drags on, and the more debt Ukraine assumes in the process, the less sovereignty they'll maintain in the aftermath.
The stupidest kids in the room right now are the folks at the Russia/Ukraine border who traded in their sovereignty (and often their lives) over an ethnic pissing contest. American investors are going to come out of this flush. Taxpayers are eating the same shit sandwich as everyone else in NATO.
Europe should stop acting like Trump is a reasonable person. He is not. And he is a Russian asset.
I'm pretty sure they are aware.
I suspect they're hoping there are still some sane heads in Washington.
I don't know if "sane" is the right way to describe the historical MO of the US Government with or without Trump, but I know what you mean. I think.
Maybe predictable or somewhat reliable would be better choices of wording?
The ue has no power regarding the usa sadly. Look at how nato was push with the "u need to pay us more" and how the negociation regarding tarrfi went. Europe has no powe in the matter regarding ukraine and arent involve in the peace discussion. Most of european leader will say something along the line ukraine good good russia bad but further than that ? not sure
Zelensky should ask Trump how much American land he is willing to give Putin.
That's easy. All of it.
Well, he's already let ol' man Vlad sniff around Alaska, so...
That could turn into a slippery slope
I'm a long way from fully versed in the intricate power plays involved here etc etc, but I'm amazed Russia didnt roll over them, and I'm pretty appalled that the world didnt rally behind Ukraine.
Thanks Trump
Perun has pretty good videos explaining why, and a big reason is that Ukraine had a very good amount of AA as a former Soviet state and it was enough to keep planes out and they didn't want to send conscripts for political reasons so they sent armored vehicles without a full infantry complement which led to them being easy to pick off with the flood of atgms NATO sent.
I think certain Russians were afraid to tell Putin that the military wasn't ready. They also didn't seem to anticipate Javelin missiles or unified Western support. The US learned a few times that invading a country with the goal of taking over the government isn't always so easy.
Didn't seem like the Russians were adequately trained. Unsupported tanks rolling down urban streets with hundreds of windows overheard from which should-fired missiles could rain down. Putin has sent hundreds of thousands of his own people to the slaughter. Dude fucked up.
Everyone in any position of authority in Russia is on the take. This means that the capabilities of the Russian military is purely theoretical, on paper Russia is a formidable force, on paper.
They sent troops in without equipment, without ammunition, and without supplies. Not because they didn't think they would need ammunition and food but because someone nicked them all back in 08 and everyone in the military is too scared of Putin to tell him this. Probably because they were the ones that took some of it.
I'm appalled that Europe isn't busy liberating Ukraine the way the UK, US and Canada liberated us.
Isnt this how russia took crimea. What makes anyone believe this'll be the last time.
Don't forget that 20% of Georgias internationally recognized borders are held by Russia as well, taken when Bush was President.
Ukraine still officially contests Crimea. It hasn't been surrendered.
But there's also no real expectation Ukraine can retake the territory in their current position. And the longer the war drags on, the more territory they're in a position to lose.
The war is currently seeing a very very slow Russian advance, but Ukraine seems to finally be able to strike the Russian economy. The drone attacks against the Russian oil industry are certainly new and increase the cost of war for Russia. Germany lost WW1 without a hostile soldier on its original territory for example.
I've been hearing this line since 2022. For all the sanctions and sabotage, Russia still seems pegged to the Petrodollar and continues to chug along as well as any OPEC state.
Meanwhile, there's no introspection on the Ukrainian economy or how another year of war will affect them.
And famously never recovered, leaving the UK and France to command Europe uncontested for the next century.
:-/
Listen, I want a Winter Palace Coup as much as any NAFO-head, but you can only claim you're winning at the Somme for so long before people start learning to count the body bags.
No, not at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_annexation_of_Crimea
We stand with Ukraine!
zelenskyy is making the right call. good. seriously!
I fully agree on the ethics and morals of it, but I also believe that Zelenskyy isn't unaware of the larger situation here and has good reason to put down his foot.
In the end this is also going to be a litmus test for Russia's Hybrid Warfare. Let it not succeed.
I hope the powers that be act accordingly before Ukrainians had enough of being pummeled. Well, I think they already had enough, but before it gets so bad that nothing will keep them fighting anymore.
After reading the comments. Is Shawn working from the Russian Embassy in Washington DC? The clown fails to understand that nobody with a sane mind wants to be occupied nor influenced by the damn Russians.
This is clearly a very Western leaning audience that is passionate about their perspective.
I don't support imperialism in general, regardless of where it comes from. I'm more interested in how empire justifies imperialistic behaviour and how its subjects align themselves with that behavior. This thread has been illuminating in that regard. I imagine there will be quite a few American supporters for war in Venezuela, for example, as there were for the Iraq war.
I agree that nothing the USA or any other party has done justifies Russia's war in Ukraine. But how the state justifies imperialism and how the subjects buy into and hold dearly their state's mistruths is what is of interest to me.
Outside the West, Putin has interestingly suffered no significant reputational damage (particularly in the Global South) which makes one wonder how widely the truths that are presented here as fact are accepted globally.
Elbows up brother. We got you. 🇨🇦
Do you want a protracted guerilla war? because this is how you get a protracted guerilla war.
I think that's the wrong narrative.
I don't think anyone really cares much about that land. It's s mixture of mud, plastic drone remains and unexploded munitions. It's important because the defence line is there. Many people say it's rich in minerals... a lot of land is in a lot of places. Nobody is going to use this land for mining, not at any time soon.
The narrative should be security guarantees.
Because when the news says: Zelensky doesn't want to ceed land, it implies some kind of pride and stubbornness. But in reality Ukraine wants security guarantees and they would be willing to not militarily contest Crimea and even Donbas. There is no point in ceeding anything were there no guarantees. But if you get them, then a lot is on the table.
The point is it the news and everyone goes with security guarantees narrative it is a much stronger narrative: you want to exist, the enemy doesn't want you to exist. Instead of taking about land where it can all sound like it bickering about who gets what. Perception matters. A lot of Europeans don't know any the details of this war and most Americans have no clue. The narrative is important.
I got deleted from another channel "Ukraine" for this view and got called a lot of bad words and I don't know why. It's not an extreme view and I think Ukrainian government sees it like that as well.
I see it as a world litmus test for law versus force. If you get invaded and you let them take your land, no matter what it's "worth", you have been conquered.
It's not even that philosophical. It really is just the simple fact that Ukraine has nothing to gain by forfeiting it's most reinforced defensive line. It took Russian 2 years to advance 30 kilometers, and tens of thousands of fatalities, to capture the relatively small town of Pokrovsk. It's incredibly expensive for Russia to make even small advancements, and now they want the most reinforced territory in the country for free?
It's a crazy demand that depends on Ukraine TRUSTING the US to come to its defence after Russia breaks the treaty, after forfeiting their defensive lines.
That is obvious, but it's not the land, is just the defence line. Hypotheticaly if they get NATO membership in exchange for Donbas, I think Ukraine would be all for that.
People aren't giving their lives there for some fields in Donbas, but to protect the rest of their country and nation.
There are people there that just want a normal life. Conquered or not, that doesn't mean anything compared to not being bombed while they are playing with their kids.
Life under Russian occupation: ‘Being Ukrainian – or even talking about Ukraine – puts your life at risk’
Or:
Life in Russia-occupied Ukraine: Terror, secret phones and a ban on the Ukrainian language
You find much more on life in temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, and it is far from what you apparently believe it is.
I think you completely misunderstood.
i dont think he have a choice at that point. European leader dont hold any weight in that matter. They love to have their picture with him cause it give them a picture of politician that are in control but they arent. Even with all the money in the world ukraine can't win. They dont have enough men and even if they send women they wont be enough. The ue is actually already paying a big chunk of ukraine spending and ukraine got recently hit by a big financial/corruption scandal. No european that is abble to fight want to fight for ukraine. It s over for them and zelensky at the moment an election is held he's out. Is it fair or just ? no but life is like that. And seeing a lot of people that are convince they can send their support are disconected from the reality. About that, ukraine still recruit military personal, so put your boot where your mouth it. Just have to say u will be consider as a mercenary so geneva convention and lot of shit won't apply to you, anyway won't change much cause it s not like either side respect it.
There are definitely people in Europe willing to fight, but joining the Ukrainian military as a foreign legion fighter or mercenary is not the same as joining the war with your own government, like you say. And saying the EU holds no weight in the matter is crazy when the EU is single handedly supporting Ukraine right now without US support for the last year.
And ceding territory is simply not an option for Zelensky, he would be overthrown the minute he tried. It's a very difficult position for him.
Oh so people are willing to fight if it s only sending ressource ? that doesnt fix their meat issue. They arent enough men in ukraine that can be send to the front. For what is sending ressource i think a lot of european were never ask on that subject and if ask they will preffer those ressource get redirected toward them rather than a country that got so many corruption scandal i can' t count them on my hand. There is definetly a part of the population that said they will support ukraine until the end of time but they arent the majority, nor they will in the extreme case europe send troops be send to the front nor they with limited ressource. Talking for the 7 highest gdp in the wolrd 1/3 of ppl when ask said they skip at least one meal by week for financial reason. Do you belive if a vote was hold on the subject of supporting ukraine the majority will say yes ? Politician love that conflict cause it s ego boosting for them. The population dont care
The overwhelming majority of the EU is actually very much in favor of financing & supporting Ukraine, it's not even really a topic here anymore. Basically everyone views the Putin regime as a direct threat to Europe. Sending military personnel is a whole different can of worms that I don't think Europe is ready for (yet), but who knows who things evolve over the next couple years, it's certainly not impossible. Europe's biggest problem is that they were unprepared for war, because they genuinely believed Russia wanted to turn a new page after 1990.
no
man he can't even conquer a country x30 smaller than his own and you want me to belive is a threat for ue ? nato ? or nuclear weaon, nuclear submarin, aircraft carrier and all of that ? who s your dealer ?
Is Zelenskyy wanting pre 2022 borders or pre 2014 borders?
Yes
The chance of Ukraine giving up territory increases a lot once they lose all their fortified front lines and the piece of land which Russia currently doesn't control It has the highest elevation of any landmass in the area
Long as he is able to, thats great. If, as I am suspecting, the jUS and Russia write up a false document essentially giving Russia what it wants without Zelenskyy's input or acceptance things might accelerate into direct conflict with nato
What a mess of a situation. When the soviet union collapsed assurances were made that NATO would not expand eastward beyond Germany. That promise obviously wasn't kept and Russia has perceived that as a provocation in the case of Ukraine being right on their border. But there's more than enough blame to go round and Russia is obviously not helping themselves.
The big questions are if NATO carries any significant impact with a disengaged US and what will be the consequences of Russia now strengthening its relationship with China and India in a world where it already seems like power, wealth and the epicenter of innovation are slowly drifting from the US to China.
It seems to me that the US has come to a realization that it can't project power over the world like it used to and would instead like to focus on its geographical 'sphere' (the Western hemisphere including Canada and South America) instead. Trumps recently released national security strategy document seems to suggest as much.
Unfortunately it's hard to imagine how this war is won for Ukraine without US engagement or a change in the mindset and strategy of the EU.
Trump is a russian asset. The majority of the USA and it's corporate overlords are not happy that trump has given away a fuck ton of our soft power.
Also russia promised not to invade Ukraine when they gave up their nukes...this has nothing to do with NATO, and everything to do with putin being an imperialistic fuck.
No doubt imperialism is involved but I think we need to be realistic in recognizing that non-NATO countries do not see NATO as a defense alliance. They see it as an extension of the American empire/imperialism. With the Trump administration it seems like even America has come to see it that way.
In 2019, the US pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty claiming that Russia had violated the treaty by developing, testing and fielding a ground‑launched cruise missile (GLCM) designated SSC‑8.
Independent analysts noted that the evidence for the Russian violation was contested, with some questioning the reliability of the U.S. claims and pointing out that the United States itself operated missile‑defense systems (e.g., Aegis Ashore) that could be interpreted as infringing the INF’s ban on land‑based intermediate‑range missiles.
This fed into their perception that if Ukraine joined NATO such weapons would pointed in their direction from Ukrainian territory.
On August 4, 2025, the Russian Federation announced the termination of its unilateral moratorium on deploying ground-launched intermediate-range (1,000–5,500 km) and shorter-range (500–1,000 km) missiles, six years after the US pulled out
Not good if you're a fan of denuclearization.
The tough thing about soft power is its built on trust so its unlikely America will be getting it back.
They can not see NATO as a defense alliance all they want... that's literally what it is. And it's why countries join it when russia is trying to invade them. Even suggesting russia is acting in any sort of good faith is bullshit. They're the aggressor in Europe... period.
Well they started the war so there's no question they're the aggressor. But to mount a legitimate defense it is important to understand the factors that contributed to their choice and judge their legitimacy. Certain actions taken by the US are noteworthy.
If we assume we are good faith actors and whoever it is we are against are acting in bad faith then we fail to see the whole picture.
Nothing the USA did, should warrant russia from invading its neighbors. Period. This is not a "well NATO" or "well USA". That's bullshit tankie/russian propaganda talk.
The reality is the US has started numerous wars on shaky grounds / manufactured consent and we at least try to reflect on their rationale and judge whether there's any way for empire to be held accountable for war on false pretenses. In the US' case it essentially never is.
This is clearly a very Western leaning audience that is entrenched in their perspective which is totally fine. As long as it's understood that they are also perceiving reality through propaganda disemminated by their elites.
I don't support imperialism in general, regardless of where it comes from. I'm more interested in how empire justifies imperialistic behaviour and how its subjects align themselves to that behavior. This thread has been illuminating in that regard. I imagine there will be quite a few American supporters for war in Venezuela, for example.
I agree with you. Nothing the USA or any other party has done justifies Russia's war in Ukraine. But how the state justifies imperialism and how the subjects buy into and hold dearly their state's mistruths is a fascinating sight to behold.
Yea and a large portion of the USA is against those wars.
You don't need propaganda to know right and wrong. Israels genocide of Palestinians is wrong. Russia invading Ukraine is wrong.
The problem is you're just say "but but USA bad"...and then trying to rationalize ruzzias bullshit with "but USA"...and no, only trump and his idiot friends want a Venezuelan war.
Which you seem to have eaten some russian propaganda.
Gorbatschow and the former Marshall of the USSR both denied the existence of these verbal assurances They found NATO expansion bad and a grave mistake but never had any reassurances by the West of not expanding To be honest, I find it ridiculous that the Baltic states which could easily be invaded within a few days without foreign help would need to cope with a constant threat of invasion just because Russia is unsecure
Europeans who stand with Ukraine are about to learn a lesson called "Guns or Butter"
Social democracy won't survive militarism.
For the warmongers here who fully back zelenskyy refusal to cede territory i would like to remember you that ukraine is in need for men and you are welcome on the front lines defending land.
And you think all that have died or been wounded would be happy to have over that territory?
I seem to recall another time where they handed over territory to a despot and believed that would be enough. Sure worked out well for them.
Why don't you go on the front lines to defend the land if you care so much about it?
Sounds like you have it all figured out.
You didn't answer the question. Personally i wouldn't want to go in ukraine risking to be burned alive fighting over invisible lines on a map so that a government can claim its theirs. For this reason i do not advocate for war or back the ones who are forcing other people to fight.
The majority of Ukrainians do not support ceding territory.
And what a stupid fucking thought process you have going. Russia invaded Ukraine, they should be fucking leaving not having tankie shits suggesting that Ukrainians should just give up.
Answer the question yourself, if you care so much about ukraine land and are afraid about russia why don't you go on the front lines?
A stupid though process is to believe that something is good only because you are not getting your hands dirty and others are doing it for you. Ukrainians should be allowed to do what the fuck they want, if case you aren't aware people are being drafted by force and many haven't been able to left the country for years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXhC8WREVKM
Recently men beetween 18-22 were allowed to leave the border (after two years of not being able to) and many left the country.
Because my donations are worth more than my body. Answer the question, why aren't you being paid to be a mouth piece for russian propaganda? Or seeing how you spell... guessing you're sitting in russia trying to convince me and others that we should abandon Ukrainians in their fight against the ruzzians.
Yea it's called a war for your survival, they're being drafted because it's needed. Again, the majority want the war to end but the majority don't want to ceded territory. This isn't rocket science.
Ok and? People don't like war, people don't like dying...why don't you ask the questions why ruzzia is attacking Ukraine and killing civs?
That's fair, I hope you like being invaded and having another country rule over you.
It's up to ukrainian people to decide what they want to do, not to the martial law or any ruler.
Fueling this war and empowering authoritarian governments is how we all end up under a boot. There are plenty of countries that are still in business with russia including USA (both current and previous administration). Fighting over inches of land benefits governments not the people that are long gone from that burned land.
Right, it's up to them until russia anexes them, and they end up under russia boot.
Keep typing or the Kremlin may pull you from your desk job and send you to the front lines. 🌻🌻🌻
Go home vatnik
Bark some more, tankie scum.
I think Putin needs to remember all of life is a give and take.
It's not though. There are some situations where you shouldn't 'give', and others where you shouldn't 'take'. This is one of the former cases he is correct.
I agree, there are situations that one shouldnt "give" and other that one shouldn't take, but that doesnt mean there arent situations of the opposite where one should give, and should take...
I dont think im making sense anymore...
At least we can agree on something
Garbage. You don't give to those who threaten you and kill your people. What a moronic idea.
I hope they can give -righteous- retribution to those in question.
In this instance... well you know who.
Exactly how much should one allow a thief to take?
What you should have said was nothing.
then give everyone a break and fuck off back to whatever shithole your crawled out of.
Problem: All he's giving is death and destruction and all he wants to take is land and children...
You can't both sides an illegal invasion.