this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
1292 points (98.7% liked)

World News

39356 readers
2483 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
 

Summary

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asserted that no world leader has the right to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin on behalf of Ukraine.

Speaking to Le Parisien readers, Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine alone determines its future and any dialogue with Russia must follow a peace plan based on strength and international support.

He warned against negotiating without clear guarantees of security, highlighting the risks of Putin resuming aggression after a ceasefire.

Zelenskyy called for a strategy ensuring Ukraine's long-term stability and security, beyond NATO or EU membership timelines.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 56 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Probably already has.

Given the Russian pushes since Trump won the election, I'm guessing the deal is "stop fighting (for a bit), but any land you're currently on is yours to keep".

This obviously will not apply to the bits of Russia currently under Ukrainian control.

Europe needs to up it's munitions manufacture. Can't rely on the US for that shit any more. They've gone mad.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

Maybe we can broker a deal where Russia gets to keep the invaded land, but Ukraine becomes a full NATO member.

That should fuck up putins imperialist plans to revive the ussr.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 22 points 3 days ago

Yep the Trump deal is currently no NATO and full handover of the two provinces plus anything Russia holds. It is absolutely ridiculous.

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

YES, please stop relying on us, it's become a very sore spot for a lot of people.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The problem is that the EU does this submissive bit because we also support the petrodollar. You're buying the EU economy and markets with those weapons.

Imagine if we gave all of that back and aligned with China instead. It would instantly reduce the US to a regional power - fighting with runaway inflation - economically speaking. Not that I think that would be good for the EU either.

The status of the US as a superpower is founded on its alliances.

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The US has a more powerful military than the next 9 countries of the top 10 combined. Based on war power expenditure. We shouldn't neglect the soft power aspect, but the hard power will keep it a superpower barring collapse of society, which is totally possible.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And what do you pay that military with? Most of that expenditure is wages.

Having a huge and advanced military and getting your economy off a cliff can go one of two ways. Either Germany 1939 or Russia 1991.

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

There are very intelligent people at the department of defense. I often disagree with their decisions, but they know how the game is played. If the economy goes off a cliff, I guarantee you soldiers will still be paid.

[–] zqps@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I mean a lot of US folks seem way more smug than actually upset about it. Bringing it up to derail the conversation whenever anyone mentions US imperialism or the one-sidedness of NATO policy, as if the US would ever accept, let alone desire a position as equal among equals.

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Just IMO (and a lot of other peoples) military spending is completely out of control and a small fraction of it could pay for healthcare and education for everyone. But I agree the ruling class and associated MIC lobbyists aren't going to let that happen any time soon, as nice as it would be.

[–] zqps@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Oh absolutely. Gotta keep the plebs desperate and divided, while billions upon billions disappear into the most toxic and destructive industry there is right alongside fossil fuel corporations.

They managed to keep military spending at an unprecedented level after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, in an amazing feat of governmental capture and exploitation by arms industry lobbyists. But it wasn't enough, because it never is. Line must go up. The US has been seeking new reasons to funnel even more money their way ever since.

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah if you make society nice and easy to live in then people stop joining the military.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 3 points 3 days ago

It could pay for those things but it won't, even if they stopped funding the military. It would be kept by the billionaire class.