How about to 2013 line?
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
467 points (99.2% liked)
World News
41063 readers
3587 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Unfortunately unlikely, considering American support is now in the hands of Putin's puppet.
I don't think that Russia would be giving up Crimea in any case, regardless of who's in the Whitehouse. The Donbas is a different question, they probably would've been prepared to give them back in whole or in part in negotiations, but I don't think Crimea would've ever been up for negotiations.
In pre-2022 positions, Crimea could be strangled; it's difficult to supply. Unfortunately, 2022 borders are only likely to be restored by negotiation, with US help unlikely, and not military success.
this was was always going to end with Russia taking a large chunk of Ukraine. there was some collective delusion for a while that it wasn't because of strong state war propaganda
but Russia is always going to care more about Ukraine than the US. It's their neighbor who they have more or less controlled directly or indirectly for hundreds of years.
US support was always limited and self-interested. Just like every time US hypes up some international ally to inevitably discard them. Remember the Kurds? I'm guessing Taiwan is the next one going forward
That would be best. Definitely.
load more comments
(15 replies)
fuck putin!
The chessboard’s lines blur when leaders mistake desperation for strategy. Zelenskyy’s demand for Russia to retreat to pre-invasion borders is less a roadmap than a plea wrapped in geopolitical theater—knowing full well Putin’s playbook doesn’t include rewinding clocks. Banking on Trump to broker peace reeks of tactical nihilism, betting on a man whose transactional whims could pivot faster than a TikTok trend.
The subtext? Ukraine’s survival now hinges on American electoral drama, where “success” is just another campaign slogan. Europe’s support here feels like a stage prop, all optics and no spine. Negotiations without Kyiv’s seat at the table? That’s not diplomacy—it’s surrender by committee.
One big reason why Ukraine can make terroritorial demands as part of its peace plan is because Europe has a huge interest in making sure Russia doesn't keep any terroritory through conquest. It sets a precident for Europe that Europe is willing to go to war over to disprove.
Zelensky's Peace Plan was actually really well thought out and affordable, Europeans and Americans were just too scared of "escalation" to give Ukraine the weapons they were requesting, and allow them into NATO.
The west has betrayed Ukraine.
The West didn’t just betray Ukraine—it betrayed its own supposed principles. The obsession with “escalation” is a coward’s excuse, a mask for the real fear: admitting that their posturing as defenders of freedom is hollow. Zelenskyy’s plan wasn’t just affordable; it was necessary. Instead, they left Ukraine to bleed while pretending to care, all for the sake of preserving their fragile illusion of stability.
Europe’s interest in territorial integrity is performative at best. If they truly believed in drawing a line against conquest, they wouldn’t have hesitated to arm Ukraine fully or fast-track NATO membership. What we’re watching isn’t diplomacy or strategy—it’s a slow-motion capitulation dressed up as pragmatism.
The West’s spine is as absent as its moral compass.
I think many of Ukraine's partners have seen this as a cheap opportunity to see the Kremlin destroy its military... at the cost of Ukrainiane lives.
In other words, part of the equation for them is balancing support so it keeps Russia engaged but mostly static. So this lowers the Kremlin's ability to repeat this kind of barbaric land grab because their Soviet stockpiles are gone and the people are left wary of starting a new war.
Surprising to me that the war in Afghanistan cost 20,000 Russian lives over ten years and was a major factor in the dissolution of the USSR. This war in Ukraine absolutely dwarfs those numbers and its in its third year, yet the Russian people are too scared or brainwashed to act.
The West’s half-measures don’t just prolong the war; they embolden Russia by showing that aggression can be met with tepid resistance. If the goal is to weaken Russia, then why not go all in? This balancing act isn’t strategy—it’s cowardice disguised as pragmatism. Ukraine pays the price while the West pats itself on the back for “restraint.”
The idea that Ukraine’s partners are playing some 4D chess to bleed Russia dry at the expense of Ukrainian lives is a convenient narrative for apathy. It frames this as a calculated sacrifice rather than what it really is: moral cowardice dressed up as strategy. Let’s not pretend this is about “balancing support”—it’s about avoiding responsibility while posturing as virtuous.
Comparing this to Afghanistan is disingenuous. That war dragged on for decades, and its toll on Russian lives was a factor in the USSR’s collapse. But today, Ukraine fights for survival in real time, while Russians remain too scared or indifferent to act. Apathy isn’t brainwashing—it’s complicity.
I suspect they don't go all in because, as I said, they want to keep the Kremlin engaged. If you look at the cost and amount of military equipment destroyed its staggering, and the Kremlin won't be able to replace it any time soon.
You misunderstood my comparison to Afghanistan, but no need to be rude about it. Russians are brainwashed, many actually believe "the West" wants to invade and destroy them, and they've been taught lies about their history of brutally oppressing people.
The West’s half-measures don’t just prolong the war; they embolden Russia by showing that aggression can be met with tepid resistance. If the goal is to weaken Russia, then why not go all in? This balancing act isn’t strategy—it’s cowardice disguised as pragmatism. Ukraine pays the price while the West pats itself on the back for “restraint.”
I see your point about Afghanistan, and I apologize if my earlier tone came off as dismissive or rude. You’re right that there are parallels worth exploring, but I think the situations diverge in key ways. Ukraine’s fight is immediate and existential, whereas Afghanistan’s impact on the USSR was a long-term grind.
As for Russians, I still believe apathy is a choice, but I appreciate your perspective.
Fair enough, differing perspectives with a lot of truth mixed in. Anyway, seems we can both agree "the West" is really failing by providing such weak support for a large democracy being brutally invaded right on their doorstep. If not for ideals, then because it's the most rational thing to do when faced with such barbaric aggression.
A prop? Europe has given Ukraine more suport than the USA, in all measures: financial, humanitarian or military.
load more comments
(19 replies)
Banking on Trump to broker peace reeks of tactical nihilism
Trump brokering a deal is not negotiable, he's going to do it for the simple reason that he sees himself as the best deal-maker, the best negotiator, the best. It would be futile to try to stop him, and it doesn't hurt Ukraine's position that he try, so why the hell would they attempt to stop him.
There's basically two outcomes, here: Trump thinks Putin is nuts when it comes to demands, Trump still wants to look good domestically, so he's doubling down on Ukraine support. Then, Trump thinks Putin is in a strong position, he tries to dictate terms to Ukraine, but will fail. US support may or may not stop after that, depending on how he can spin it domestically, in any case Europe is there to have Ukraine's back.
This decision point -- is Trump going to squeeze a deal that's acceptable for Ukraine out of Putin -- has to be awaited before Ukraine can move, because otherwise you're pissing Trump off and making the US pull out instead of double down more likely.
tl;dr: It's strategically opportune to hold Trump's beer right now, you might not believe he can get anything out of Putin but you got to let him try, and fail, on his own.
Trump’s self-image as the “best deal-maker” is precisely the problem. His deals are transactional theater, not strategy. He doesn’t broker peace; he brokers leverage—for himself. Ukraine’s survival isn’t a stage for his ego or America’s domestic optics; it’s existential. Betting on Trump isn’t just naive, it’s dangerous.
Your two outcomes ignore a third: Trump undermines Ukraine to curry favor with Putin, framing it as “peace.” Europe might have Ukraine’s back, but Trump’s America-first rhetoric would leave Kyiv holding the bag. The US pulling out isn’t a threat—it’s a gift to Russia.
Strategic opportunism? No, it’s capitulation dressed as pragmatism. Letting Trump “try and fail” risks lives, sovereignty, and global stability. Ukraine can’t afford to be someone’s PR stunt.
How, in your mind, would Ukraine go about stopping Trump from doing whatever he's going to do in Saudi Arabia, and what would be the costs?
load more comments
(6 replies)
Negotiations without Kyiv’s seat at the table?
Really makes one question the narrative of the defensive war in favour of the proxy war between Russia and US doesn't it?
load more comments
(2 replies)
For someone that demanded the 2014 borders for the past few years, this is a concession. Odds are that Putin wants all of Ukraine even if Russia has to stop where they are for a few years and repeat the 2014 playbook. It's very surprising Russia hasn't been able to push past the current positions. However, they are close to taking certain important cities and the highways.
Another possibility is if Ukraine has elections and chooses another pro Russian president. Then you would have the largest army in Europe equipped with Western weapons potentially switch sides and on to other former USSR states.
There is zero chance that after the last 11 years (and especially the last 3)ukraine will elect a pro Russian president in the next 3 generations. The pro Russian oblasts (the ones in the east) have either been annexed or obliterated, there's little sympathy left for Russia. If before the war there was a 45-45 split, I'm pretty sure it's 85-10 now.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Russia is not that strong
load more comments
(2 replies)
Zelenskyy giving interviews to propaganda outlets like Newsmax, especially in giving in to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in peace talk negotiation, is just dealing into Russia's hand. Trump's odd pandering to Putin means that Zelenskyy should be spending his time wheeling and dealing with as many European politicians as possible, since Trump will take Russian bribes in a minute over recognizing the illegality, authoritarianism, and ethnic cleansing associated with Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the countless war crimes that it has perpetuated in the process.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›