• knotthatone@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m pretty sure the Ukrainians will cease firing once the Russians leave their country and stop trying to murder them.

    • o_d [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      If you believe this, then you’re completely ignorant of the events that led to this war in the first place.

    • Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      4 months ago

      Here’s a question nobody has been able to answer for me yet.

      Why would Russia abandon a 2 year long military operation they’re winning.

      Literally just because a bunch of American libs said they should online?

      All reports are pointing to it not being the russians that would benefit from a ceasefire.

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Nobody expects that they actually will do so willingly. Just that Russia should because, y’know, starting wars to annex territory is not something most people like. That’s why Ukraine should be armed until it can make Russia leave.

        That said, Russia would absolutely benefit from a negotiated settlement right now. This war is taking a lot of Russian lives and resources, so if it can persuade either Ukraine to agree to enough concessions or Ukraine’s backers to stop backing it, Russia could benefit enormously. Even if Russia actually manages to completely overrun Ukraine in the future, actually having to fight to the end will be an extremely costly ordeal.

        • ExotiqueMatter
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          This take is both idealistic and ignorant of the situation on the ground.

          It’s clear to anyone paying attention that Ukraine has lost any shot they had at driving Russia out in 2023, assuming they even had any shot at it in the first place. As shown by the evolution of the front line in 2023, Russia is now deeply entrenched in it’s current position and Ukraine, even back when Western military support was at it’s maximum, is unable to make them move from them in any significant way. Meanwhile Russia has had the time to adapt to western sanctions and the economy not only stabilized but is even growing quite a lot, especially the arms industry.

          You need to come to terms with the fact that Ukraine won’t be getting back the occupied territory. With Russia now largely outproducing the west on military equipment and the west having pretty much depleted their stockpile, Ukraine, who is largely dependent to western military aid as their own military industrial base is far from solid, will unravel sooner rather than later. The ONLY thing sending them weapons is doing right now is prolonging the war and getting more Ukrainian killed for literally nothing.

          Getting more thousands of Ukrainian killed because of the delusion that they can somehow still drive Russia out at this point is not worth whatever territory they want to get back.

          Continuing to send billions of dollars of weapons to them won’t do any good to the Ukrainian peoples, and you aren’t the saviour of Ukraine you think you are by cheering for this.

          What would do good for the Ukrainian people is suing for peace and starting to rebuild whatever territory they have left.

          • Skua@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            I don’t want to make Ukrainians do anything. If they choose to keep fighting, they should be enabled to do so. If they choose to make peace, great, but they should be armed sufficiently that they can actually negotiate instead of just capitulate. Either way they need to be armed, because if they don’t have the capacity to make the status quo costly then they have no leverage. There is no negotiation if we neuter Ukraine beforehand, there are only Russian demands.

            Also, most of the aid is not weapons. A lot of it is, but more of it is housing Ukrainian refugees and funding the Ukrainian govenment to keep the basics of civil services going.

            • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              If they choose to keep fighting

              1. How may of them chose to fight in the first place, aside from the neo-Nazi ones? Many of them were conscripted and forced to fight.
              2. How many of the women & children & old men want the fighting to continue? The Ukrainian government is a shit government; how committed even are they to its survival? This is a post-US coup government that has banned opposition parties and is auctioning the country off to foreign capitalists. All of the aid they’re getting is lend-lease, which they will be repaying for generations. This is going to be full-on neoliberal shock therapy.
              3. To what extent does the Ukrainian government have a choice in whether to continue fighting, when the US clearly has a lot of say in the matter despite its claims to the contrary?
              • Skua@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago
                • 1: Enough that there aren’t mass desertions at the front lines.

                • 2a: Continuing to fight typically has 2:1 support in what polling I have seen. My country’s governnment is absolute dogshit, but if Russia invaded my country you’re damn fucking right I’d want to fight them about it even with our shit government.

                • 2b: Your article assumes a US coup, it does not show that there was a US coup. It is not weird that the American embassy wanted to negotiate with potential new leaders, doing so does not mean they masterminded a coup, and Zelenskyy was never even mentioned in the Nuland-Pyatt call. There have been two elections since then. It is also not difficult to believe that the protests against Yanukovych were legitimate considering his massive unilateral lurch in policy just beforehand.

                • 2c: Absolutely shocking to suspend pro-Russia parties while literally being invaded by Russia. It should be noted that the incumbent party has a majority either way and suspending parties did not grant them any power they didn’t already have. Further, the parties suspended represent a minority of the opposition.

                • 2d: Sorry to tell you this but fighting a war is actually quite expensive. Is this approach the best one? I have no idea. It hardly seems relevant to what your second point started as. If you’d rather Ukraine didn’t do this, it’s going to need alternative financing, which means more support from its backers, not less.

                • 2e: I do think that it should just be gifted, and some of it is. If your preference is that they get nothing at all then Ukraine could equally just refuse the lend-lease. Again, the better solution here is more support, not less.

                • 2f: You know Ukraine was a capitalist country before this war started, right? But once again, if you don’t want this to happen, Ukraine needs more unconditional support, not less.

                • 3: How much say do you think the US has? This article is literally about Russia trying to get the US to decide on Ukraine’s behalf and the US saying “that’s not our choice”. What is the US going to do if Ukraine decides to stop fighting? Stop supplying arms that the Ukrainians don’t need anyway if they’re at peace? The thing that I assume you want the US to do anyway, given the comment you’re responding to?

            • ExotiqueMatter
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              A pretty fair point but I still think you are neglecting a few things.

              Firstly, while according to this study by the Kiev international institute of sociology most Ukrainians do still support the war it also indicate that the portion that peace at the cost of losing territory is definitely growing since the start of 2023, if I were to try giving admittedly loose and uncertain bound based on those numbers and assuming the rate of change don’t shrink, I would expect this portion to reach 50% of the population 2 months from now at the soonest, 11 months from now at the latest.

              An other related thing to consider is how accurately is the state of the war depicted in Ukrainian media? A state at war that don’t plan to surrender has incentives to make their war effort as good as possible and the enemy’s war effort as bad as possible and Ukraine is obviously no exception.

              Depending on how distorted the narrative about the war is, these figures could be drastically different from what they would be if the Ukrainian public got a more neutral account of the war.

              So do the Ukrainian want to continue fighting? For now yes, but I don’t believe it will last.

              Your leverage point is moot in my opinion.

              As I said, it is a fact that Russia is winning the war and that Ukraine has decisively failed to push them back before the Russian entrenchment in their position and the dwindling military supply to Ukraine made doing so impossible going forward.

              I’m not saying that Russia could just roll over to Kiev any day if they wanted, that would obviously be absurd, but the military situation in Ukraine, the state of western weapon manufacturing compared to Russia’s and the sheer difference in manpower reserve and moral make it such that even if the west threw every last weapon in their stockpile at Ukraine, it would not change significantly what a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev could look like. I repeat therefor once again that the ONLY thing continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons is increasing the death toll on both side and prolonging the was for nothing, it’s literally not doing anything more, let alone helping Ukraine in any tangible way.

              You are right, though, that most of the aid to Ukraine is humanitarian and not military, and those absolutely should continue, but that’s one reason more to not prolong the war uselessly, the end of the war would make helping the Ukrainian people way easier and would allow Ukraine to start rebuilding.

              • Skua@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I don’t understand your reasoning behind:

                Your leverage point is moot in my opinion.

                If arming Ukraine does not substantially impact Ukraine’s ability to fight, how does it prolong the war? In your assessment, Ukraine would be forced to make peace at the same point either way. Could you expand on that?

                • ExotiqueMatter
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  If arming Ukraine does not substantially impact Ukraine’s ability to fight, how does it prolong the war?

                  This is not exactly what I said. I didn’t say that it didn’t impact Ukraine’s ability to fight, I said it doesn’t change the outcome of the war.

                  Of course, arming Ukraine adds difficulty for Russia, but it only at most delay Russia getting what they want since because of the way the war is going and the west’s inability to outproduce Russia, Russia has time on their side. Russia can largely afford to just wait until western weapon supply to Ukraine can’t keep up with theirs anymore, which is exactly what they have been doing since their retreat from the siege of Kiev in 2022, that’s why the front line has barely moved since then, Russia know they are in a position where time will do most of the work for them.

            • Xavienth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Well as per the article that choice is clearly not theirs, it’s the United States’. And the US says war

              • Skua@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Read the fucking article. The US response was “it’s not our choice to make”

                • Xavienth
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  You don’t think the US is privately egging Zelensky on while publicly putting on a face of “oh it’s totally their choice to make”?

                  If I had stock in Raytheon that’s certainly what I’d like to see… just saying.

      • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        This entire response here was ostensibly in respect to Ukraine.

        From the article, which you clearly didn’t read:

        A U.S. official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, said that the U.S. has not engaged in any back channel discussions with Russia and that Washington had been consistent in not going behind the back of Ukraine.

  • CoolerOpposide [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    4 months ago

    That’s really bizarre because why does America have a say in Russo-Ukrainian affairs? Shouldn’t a ceasefire be determined by the two parties not currently at a ceasefire?

    Somebody who is good at geopolitics explain

  • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    4 months ago

    Don’t know why the United States would have any say in Putin pulling the Russian paramilitary out of Ukraine. Ceasefire is simple, back your ass out of Ukraine, back to 2013 borders.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      They (the US) don’t, and they acknowledge that.

      In the interview with fucker carlson, Putin said that Ukraine is a vassal of the US and Russia does not negotiate with Ukraine as it’s useless, they want to only negotiate with the puppet master.

      Hence the offer, hence the rejection. It’s geopolitical theatre.

  • nekandro@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    4 months ago

    I question why the US is doing the rejection rather than Ukraine (and similarly, why the UK rejected the last peace talks…)

    • Skua@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      The article you posted: “The Americans refuse to talk unless the Ukrainians are also invited”

      You, for some reason: “Why is America deciding for Ukraine?”

    • PinkOwls@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s one of Putin’s strategies: To make it look like it is a conflict between the US/NATO and Russia, not between Ukraine and Russia. He also tries to diminish Ukrainian sovereignity by making it appear as if the US is the overlord, as if Ukraine is an American puppet. It’s all about making Ukraine look like it isn’t its own country. That’s why we get those bullshit historic lessons by that pathetic man-child.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      From the article:

      A U.S. official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, said that the U.S. has not engaged in any back channel discussions with Russia and that Washington had been consistent in not going behind the back of Ukraine.

  • mellowheat@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    So possible options as I see them:

    1. Biden’s USA is stubborn and nihilistic and just wants to kill as many Ukrainians and Russians as possible before Trump comes in and forces Ukraine to accept a treaty

    2. USA (and Ukraine) knows that Putin hasn’t changed its demands at all so any talks are pointless

    3. USA (and Ukraine) knows that Russia is losing and doesn’t want to negotiate

    4. Biden forgot how to use a phone and is too embarrased to ask

    I’m personally going with 2 with a sprinkle of 4 and 1. In my happy dreams, 3.

      • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Why are so many people here from Lemmy.ml and Hexbear assuming Putin and Russia offered an amicable ceasefire? When has Putin EVER shown he would ever want such a thing?

        You people have worms in your brains.

        • Muad'DibberA
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Why does Russia feel the need to defend itself from this?

          Should they just give in to US hegemony like Europe did?

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Why would Russia change its demands? It’s winning. If the other side is winning, you want to negotiate because the terms will only get worse.

        • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s propaganda. There are communist extremists in this thread trying to convince everyone the US is evil and using Ukraine as a bargaining chip.

          I don’t even disagree that the US has done, and will continue to do evil stuff… But this isn’t one of those times.

          The US is refusing to deal in back channels with Russia, and are insisting Ukraine be involved. From the article:

          A U.S. official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, said that the U.S. has not engaged in any back channel discussions with Russia and that Washington had been consistent in not going behind the back of Ukraine.

          • Apollo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            Why would a communist parrot the propaganda of a right wing oligarchy invading another country?

            Oh right, hexbear.

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          That’s right, they should be. They aren’t doing so because it’s in the interest of the U.S. to continue the war, and the Ukrainian government more or less exists at the pleasure of the U.S.

    • D61 [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      The one thing that the Liberals have decided to take a stand on, “Russia Bad!”, to the point that they’ll keep the war machine churning through Ukranian bodies until its some other administration’s responsibility to turn off the US money spigot. Then they’ll squeal about it being a Putin Puppet’s doing or some shit.

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Update: it would seem that people disagree with me, fair enough, but perhaps somebody would care to tell me what is wrong with my theory?

    Original comment:
    I’m going to try with a crazy conspiracy theory(but the crazy ones are the more entertaining ones, right?):

    Putin’s investment in the western defense industry drove the invasion of Ukraine to stimulate European NATO countries’ military investments.

    Reasoning:

    1. Russia’s actions towards Eastern NATO countries and the invasion of Ukraine could be strategic moves to encourage European NATO nations to bolster their military investments.
    2. Sweden and Finland’s potential NATO membership could further incentivize their procurement of NATO-aligned weaponry.
    3. Other Western European countries are already allocating significant resources to military investments.

    Considering Occam’s razor, is it simpler to assume Putin, heavily invested in the defense industry, initiated conflict for profit, or believe in complex internal political motives?