3
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

“We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression,” Blinken said in a speech in Finland, which recently became NATO’s newest member and shares a long border with Russia.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Phantom_Engineer@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Ha, the local tankies are starting to find out that they're outnumbered by reddit-fuges. Still, I believe that barring a negotiated peace, the war will continue for many, many years. The alternatives are either Russian withdraw and/or regime change or Ukrainian collapse, and neither seem likely in the near future. Even Kissinger, which is as blood-thirsty as they come, has suggested a negotiated peace, and it's hard to imagine a negotiation that doesn't concede something to Russia. The question isn't a moral one. The deaths will continue to pile up until negotiation begins.

[-] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

look, no reasonable person wants war-- but that's the problem: those who started the war and are continuing it aren't being reasonable. And they're not going to negotiate any sort of peace if they don't get what they wanted by stating the war in the first place: a slice of Ukraine. so, also believe there won't be any peace until Russia leaves Ukraine, and that may take years to convince them to do-- at the barrel of a gun, sadly. Possibly a Russian regime change.

as for the local tankies... i don't know how much of that you read, but when attempts at rational arguments failed, they just resorted to personal attacks and bullying, which is nothing foreign to me. battle-hardened with the most toxic of reddit trolls, it just rolls of my back. :P

[-] pingveno@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ukraine will at least need to make some sort of compromise over the port at Sevastopol. From what I understand, that's the only port available for Russia's Black Sea fleet. Russia has historically held a naval base there and would likely be unyielding on that point. Forcing Russia to butt out is one thing, but them losing significant amounts of their defense capability is another.

[-] SolarSailer@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago

Perhaps an option could be that Ukraine gets their land back, but there's some agreement that Russia can rent out the land around the port at Sevastopol.

Ukraine gets paid for the use of their land (and ultimately they still own it), and Russia gets exclusive access to that part of the port where they can do whatever they need.

[-] pingveno@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that's basically what I'm suggesting, plus security guarantees to avoid a repeat conflict. Before 2014, Russia was renting out the base.

[-] SolarSailer@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago

Interesting, I didn't realize that Russia was already renting out the base pre-2014. Thank you for that context.

[-] pingveno@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

It's probably why Russia invaded Crimea in the first place. Otherwise it's not all that useful.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago

Or you know it could be that Crimea is primarily populated by Russians and the regime the west installed after the coup was actively doing pogroms against Russian speaking people in Ukraine.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32351 readers
412 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS