576
submitted 7 months ago by breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

President Volodymyr Zelensky believes that Ukraine's partners "are afraid of Russia losing the war" and would like Kyiv "to win in such a way that Russia does not lose," Zelensky said in a meeting with journalists attended by the Kyiv Independent.

Kyiv's allies "fear" Russia's loss in the war against Ukraine because it would involve "unpredictable geopolitics," according to Zelensky. "I don't think it works that way. For Ukraine to win, we need to be given everything with which one can win," he said.

His statement came on May 16 amid Russia's large-scale offensive in Kharkiv Oblast and ongoing heavy battles further east. In a week, Russian troops managed to advance as far as 10 kilometers in the northern part of Kharkiv Oblast, according to Zelensky.

MBFC
Archive

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] rimu@piefed.social 120 points 7 months ago

Yeah although if Russia wins it'd involve "unstable geopolitics" too.

This could be a long war.

[-] Aux@lemmy.world 34 points 7 months ago

I said it many times before - no one wants this war to end except for Ukrainians. It's just a very profitable venture for the rest of the world.

[-] jabjoe@feddit.uk 20 points 7 months ago

Putin will want it over. It's an embarrassment to him that Ukrainians don't want him and have resisted him so effectively.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] hark@lemmy.world 84 points 7 months ago

I feel like for a number of the allies, their main goal has been to drain Russia of resources, even if it costs the lives of Ukrainians.

[-] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 33 points 7 months ago

This seems to be the sad realpolitik truth. It explains how some of the aid has been given.

Enough to keep grinding down the Kremlin's war machine, not enough to actually take the Kremlin out of the fight.

In a more utilitarian analysis, this might be the best for the greatest number of people. From an empathetic human perspective... it's pretty fucking dark to see young Ukrainian men dying for this. Still better than living under the Kremlin's boot.

[-] deft@lemmy.wtf 27 points 7 months ago

Fuck.

I understand the math but disgusted at the moral/ethics.

Destruction would potentially cause post WWI vibe, could create a massive migration issue, cause further suffering or the development of horrible black market bullshit or anything in between, that power vacuum would be awful.

Burn out would probably cause more revolutionary thinking and inspire a change in direction.

Fuck. I honestly just want people to not fuckin die.

[-] trafficnab@lemmy.ca 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

As long as there are people willing to kill to oppose it, death is an unfortunate necessity for democracy's preservation.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] whereisk@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

I'm assuming the West's analysis is that there's no better political reality inside Russia in sight, even with Putin gone, so they're better off just declawing the bear. Which to a large degree has already happened..

Meanwhile the upside is that the collective West gets to try tactics and weapons for modern warfare (drones, ai, analysis) and get ready for the next fight. They also gained a fight-ready, trained ally in Ukraine and a sharper focus in Europe of what's at stake and everything that that involves (eg energy and supply chain independence).

The downside is obviously the deaths of Ukrainians in the front line, but I don't know how many of them could be prevented without NATO getting properly involved.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 13 points 7 months ago

The goal is to provide enough aid to Ukraine to defeat the invading army without providing so much aid that Ukraine becomes an existential threat to Russia. There being an existential threat to a nuclear power can have some bad outcomes. So it's a balancing act for the West. This is what Zelensky is alluding to with “to win in such a way that Russia does not lose.”

And of course there's a lot of shenanigans involving Russian assets in the west doing everything they can to sabotage aid efforts. That's a significant factor in all of this that shouldn't be ignored. Providing military aid to Urkaine is a no-brainer for geopolitical interests, but no-brain Russian shills are doing their best to block it.

A long drawn out war of attrition isn't actually in the best interests for the West. Russia gains experience, improves their weaponry and has ample opportunities to test that technology in the battlefield. They've been updating the battlefield doctrine to include ways to effectively use new technologies like drones. This isn't something the West wants.

Best outcome for the West is Ukraine drives out the Russian Military, and there's a peace agreement that resolves all disputed territory which would pave the way for Ukraine to join NATO. The longer the war drags on, the longer it will be before Ukraine is part of NATO.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] xenoclast@lemmy.world 72 points 7 months ago

That's a nice way of calling people helping you cowards for doing it half hearted cuz they're also afraid of your opponent. I think the message was sent.

He MUST know how much influence Russia has in the halls of power and media of his allies as well.

Ukraine fights a war on MANY fronts. Not all of them with bullets.

[-] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 16 points 7 months ago

A large part of this war is centered on propaganda and information warfare- something Russia excels at

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz 46 points 7 months ago

Some of us are more afraid that they will win and get ideas that they can test article 5 in the Baltics/Poland and survive.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 42 points 7 months ago

It's true, and they're not wrong, nuclear Yugoslavia would be scary. Unfortunately I don't think there's an alternative, Putin rang a bell that can't be un-rung.

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

when they decided to violate the Budapest Memorandum everything went out the door, including russia's future. it's going to be very, very hard to ever get back to the economic or industrial positions they occupied previously.

their people will suffer, and the only way it will end is if they hang putin from a light pole.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 37 points 7 months ago

The west is legit afraid of Russia's collapse because once again someone will have to bail Russia out and it'll either be another 1988 mess or a new toy for China.

What will happen to Russia once it's fully in "war economy" and loses the war?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 33 points 7 months ago

It's really a matter of Ukraine hanging on for as long as it takes for the price of oil and gas to collapse again. That's the only thing that can get Russia to stop.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 32 points 7 months ago

Kyiv’s allies “fear” Russia’s loss in the war against Ukraine because it would involve “unpredictable geopolitics,” according to Zelensky.

Is “unpredictable geopolitics” a euphemism for 'nuclear war'?

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[-] DeadPand@midwest.social 51 points 7 months ago

More like money people don’t want their money fucked with anymore than it has been by this war

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

In so far as they want a predictable outcome, because unpredictable outcomes arent profitable

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 12 points 7 months ago
load more comments (36 replies)
[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 25 points 7 months ago

So much of the current internal domestic Russian zeitgeist is the idea of national strength compared to other nations. Pride comes with their strongman. If they are finally faced with the truth that neither Russia or its strongman are strong, it could lead to Russia/Russians trying to assert it in other ways to try to rationalize it. Or Russia could simply collapse from within orphaning hundreds of nuclear warheads leading to opportunists selling warheads to the highest bidders. The only thing worse than Russia having nuclear weapons is every two-bit terrorist or backwater dictator getting their hands on them.

Keep in mind none of this in my mind means we stop supporting Ukraine economically and militarily. Russia made its bed. We can't choose our actions based upon trying to save Russia from itself.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 19 points 7 months ago

I think that's one of the meanings. If a Russian loss led to the sudden collapse of the Russian state or a radical retraction of the Russian economy, who knows what the consequences would be?

I don't think that's a justification for not letting Russia lose, but it is a big bag of who-the-fuck-knows.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

While we really don't want a state with thousands of nukes to splinter, I doubt that any policy writers in DC feel that way, given the eulogies they gave to Navalny, a guy who had politics somewhere around Mussolini's and made Putin look like a dove.

But also the fact that we have like 8000 tanks in the desert that we're not sending tells me that they'd rather fight Russia to the last drop of Ukrainian blood than actually break Russia so who knows.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

While we really don’t want a state with thousands of nukes to splinter

People said that would happen after the fall of the USSR too. Turns out treaties and agreements can do a lot to stop things like that quickly.

On the other hand, such an agreement is what Russia is violating right now.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] 8ender@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I was thinking the collapse of the state, and China picking up some of what’s left.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 29 points 7 months ago

This is and always has been a proxy war and a siege meant to exhaust Russian resources slowly and without rapidly escalating to more destructive methods.

[-] retrospectology@lemmy.world 41 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Unfortunately this is a big part of why the first big summer counter-offensive by Ukraine stalled; NATO delayed aid by just enough that it guarunteed the war would drag out.

Personally I think it's about money for the industrial military complex. If the war had ended quickly while Ukraine had men, momentum and the initiative it would mean less money for industrialists.

Even US generals like Patreaus were predicting the delay by the Biden admin on F-16s etc. would lead to a massively protracted conflict.

It makes one ashamed that when our country finally does have a righteous cause for our massive military complex our leaders are still playing grab ass trying to make a buck while Ukrainians are fighting to exist. It's one of Biden's (and NATOs) biggest failures.

[-] abracaDavid@lemmy.today 13 points 7 months ago

The insane amount of power that US military industrial complex has over our country and therefore the world is completely fucked.

Eisenhower was right.

[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz 37 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Siege of whom? Normally, a siege ends when the sieger goes home. If russia wants to stop bleeding, go home.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] InternetPerson@lemmings.world 33 points 7 months ago

How is it a proxy war if it was russia which started it?

[-] StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 7 months ago

I don't think it started as a proxy war. Russia just decided to be stupid, but at this point it may very well be a proxy war in fact.

It's to pretty much everyone's benefit (except Ukraine's) for this to drag out for a nice long time. The more manpower and material Russia and their allies burns up in this stupidity, the longer the rest of Europe can breath freely. It gives them time to rebuild the armies that they have allowed to atrophy. There's probably more to it and it's callus as fuck, but that's the math I see.

[-] leviathan3k@sh.itjust.works 8 points 7 months ago

It is very much to Ukraine's benefit to drag out this war if the alternative is Russian subjucation.

If on the other hand the alternative you are seeking is flooding Ukraine with Western-provided weapons to the point that they annihilate the invaders and win quickly.. yeah, that would be better for Ukraine than a drawn-out war.

[-] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 18 points 7 months ago

It's a kind of mix of a proxy war. Russia is involved itself but Ukraine is used as a proxy by the west I guess?

[-] Urist@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

People forgot quickly how hesitant the European countries were, and still are, to send equipment to Ukraine. Germany didn't send anything but helmets for a long while. They also cancelled North Stream, leading to increased inflation and lessened economic competitive viability. If anything, the proxy war is exhausting both Russian and European economies, with the US and China ready to scoop up the scraps in preparation for their intensifying trade war.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

a proxy war and a siege meant to exhaust Russian resources slowly and without rapidly escalating to more destructive methods.

funny how Putin started a siege on russia by invading a country they were treaty-bound to protect..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] takeda@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago

This is true. Russia saber rattling about using nuclear weapons, doesn't mean much. Putin knows this would not lead to victory and likely would end up with him losing power and likely life.

The scary time is what he will do when he will see his power slipping. Thankfully in 1992 Gorbachev managed to handle it peacefully. Hopefully when it happens it will end up similarly.

[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

Europe should step up and commit troops and real weapons. America will have your back, but Europe should be the next to jump in.

[-] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 23 points 7 months ago

The minute a NATO member put boots on the ground, it's a bigger can of worms that is opened.

[-] nahuse@sh.itjust.works 14 points 7 months ago

A NATO country can do whatever it wants with its troops, even engaging in a war overseas, without any kind of implications for the wider alliance.

The only way it would further escalate is if Putin thinks he can then attack/invade those countries in response, which may trigger the mutual defense article of NATO.

[-] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 8 points 7 months ago

Or swing the nuclear dick, make everyone nervous and make them swing their nuclear dicks as well.

The point still stand, if a NATO member engages fights in Ukraine, the outcome is not predictable and it escalates the conflict.

It's never a war in a vacuum with only two sides.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 May 2024
576 points (96.6% liked)

World News

39402 readers
2246 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