this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
1147 points (98.8% liked)

World News

39333 readers
3161 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asserted that no world leader has the right to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin on behalf of Ukraine.

Speaking to Le Parisien readers, Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine alone determines its future and any dialogue with Russia must follow a peace plan based on strength and international support.

He warned against negotiating without clear guarantees of security, highlighting the risks of Putin resuming aggression after a ceasefire.

Zelenskyy called for a strategy ensuring Ukraine's long-term stability and security, beyond NATO or EU membership timelines.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
[–] archomrade@midwest.social -5 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

The one we're talking about.

The taliban had the support of Pakistan, as well as Iran and Russia - that's the only way that kind of war could last for 20 years. That's essentially where we are now with western backing, but if the west pulls support.... Ukraine can last only so long on will-power alone. The same could be said for Russia, but as far as I can tell there isn't an active risk of their allies pulling support yet.

edit: far be it for me to point out that's why there's been so much circling of wagons to keep the US involved and so much panic about trump pulling us out

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

I think you're overstating how much help the Afghans got from PK/US the first time PK/RU/IR the second time, but in any case Ukraine is far better able to sustain itself given their much more developed industry and infrastructure, and the fact that the bulk of the country is unoccupied. It wouldn't be a cakewalk by any means, but Ukraine wouldn't cease to exist.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 22 minutes ago) (1 children)

I don't really think I am, but fair enough.

Ukraine might have more advanced infrastructure than Afghanistan, but having that infrastructure within reach of Russian missiles and airstrikes means that they'd have to defend it or else lose the means to sustain a continued resistance. Again, I don't think people appreciate just how much trouble Ukraine would be in if the west pulled support before a ceasefire deal is struck - Ukrainian forces aren't guerilla fighters. If Russia didn't already have the upper hand now, they certainly would once Ukraine was left to maintain their resistance alone - and then it would really only be a question of how long Russian citizens will put up with their wartime economy (and how many soldiers NK is willing to lose).

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

There's absolutely no way Russia can take and hold all of Ukraine -- it would be a real challenge to keep the provinces they've already carved off if Ukrainians keep pressing the issue. I'm certainly not advocating for the end of Western support -- au contraire -- but it's really, really hard to occupy and pacify a country, especially one the size of Ukraine with a population of nearly 40 million. The USSR had enormous resources to deploy in its imperial expansion and was mostly unopposed, whereas today's Russia doesn't benefit from either point and it's harder to be a rogue state in today's world.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not suggesting they would or would want to take all of Ukraine, just that Ukraine isn't likely to gain any ground or stop further Russian advance without outside aid.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 2 points 17 hours ago

Oh, in that case I agree, although if UA wanted to make things as difficult for Russia as possible, they could do so indefinitely in such a way that those easternmost provinces are in a perpetual state of low-level war, let alone the massive demographic and economic damage that Russia will have to deal with and will likely never recover from.