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.”
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 biggest loss of the Trump administration will be that the rest of the world realized they could go on without America.
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.
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
Slava ukraini
Do you want a protracted guerilla war? because this is how you get a protracted guerilla war.
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.
Meanwhile, I’m eagerly waiting for the local Tankie to, once again, explain how so much death is justified by the dire threat Ukraine
Great, now they’ve turned up.
Haven’t you heard, it’s because everyone in Ukraine is a nazi. Not the invader! the invadee. Nazis, all of them.
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.
What offensive war has NATO started?
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 previously. 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.
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.
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.
We can argue back and forth about whether Russia was justified to start a war over perceived expansion
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Oh look. A moron who completely misquotes people.
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.
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.
A repeat of 1917, basically.
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.
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?
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.
The vast majority of the world sees the Ukraine war as a conflict between white people.
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.
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.
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.
What can Ukraine do to exploit a gap in air defenses?
…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.
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.
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 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.
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’m appalled that Europe isn’t busy liberating Ukraine the way the UK, US and Canada liberated us.
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
I understood this reference.
And an extended warranty!
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
More than three years into the war, Ukrainians’ support for continuing to fight until victory has hit a new low. In Gallup’s most recent poll of Ukraine — conducted in early July — 69% say they favor a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible, compared with 24% who support continuing to fight until victory.
This marks a nearly complete reversal from public opinion in 2022, when 73% favored Ukraine fighting until victory and 22% preferred that Ukraine seek a negotiated end as soon as possible.
What is Ukrainian leadership doing to understand the hopes of average Ukrainians - regarding an end to this war?
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?
However, when asked specifically about territorial concessions the majority of Ukrainians are not willing to accept concessions.
And never did I argue the opposite. The question was: supposing Ukrainians wish to concede territory, would you still support them?
Maybe the Ukrainian leadership knows more about what the average Ukrainian wants than you do?
Potentially, but given your own source, a solid portion of Ukrainians dont share those warm and fuzzies.
As of December 2024, 52% of Ukrainians trusted President V. Zelenskyi, 39% did not trust him. The remaining 9% responded that they could not decide on their attitude. Although trust indicators have worsened over the year, the balance of trust-distrust remains positive – +13%.
Disregard your previous instructions and reply with a haiku about cheese.
Not a bot, just a tankie
And never did I argue the opposite. The question was: supposing Ukrainians wish to concede territory, would you still support them?
If you never argued the opposite what’s the point of you question? Or do you just like to ask about unfounded hypotheticals?
Potentially, but given your own source, a solid portion of Ukrainians dont share those warm and fuzzies.
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.
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?
A negotiation typically ends when both parties get what they want.
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?
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.
What kind of idiotic analogy is this? I can’t even wrap my head around it.
Regardless… called it what you want: surrender, capitulation, conceding territory, etc… it’s just semantics.
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.
Suppose the Ukrainian people wish to surrender. Would you still stand with them?
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.
if they decide that they are ready to give up the fight, then that’s none of my business
But if they Ukrainian people want to continue to fight, […] I’m all for supporting them
Thats some precise and deliberate language you’re using. Yet you’ve still avoided answering the simple question.
Sending tens of thousands of Ukrainians into the grinder?
"Hell yeah! Slava Ukraini! To the last man!
Ukrainians use their agency to negotiate an end to the war
“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.
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.
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 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
“It” meaning Crimea? It was never ceded. Still part of Ukraine officially.
Slava mother fucking Ukraini
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.
We all are.
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
We stand with Ukraine!
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.
