Europe

8488 readers

1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

poVoq@slrpnk.net

‘Putin will spark a third world war if Russia claims victory in Ukraine’: Ukrainian steel magnate Yuriy Ryzhenkov warns of global fallout from the Kremlin’s war (www.telegraph.co.uk)

submitted 8 months ago by 0x815@feddit.de to c/europe@feddit.de

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/9202260

Vladimir Putin will spark a third world war if the Russian president is allowed to declare victory in Ukraine, according to the boss of the country’s biggest private employer.

Yuriy Ryzhenkov, chief executive of Metinvest, which ran the sprawling Azovstal steelworks that became the site of a relentless Russian assault at the start of the 2022 invasion, warned of the consequences of a Kremlin victory.

“I don’t believe that if Ukraine fails, Putin will stop,” he said in an interview ahead of the two year anniversary of the war in Ukraine. “The Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia are the next targets.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] nuscheltier@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So why is it acceptable for America to stage coups, rig elections, and assassinate leaders covertly

It is not, but this is not the topic of our discussion. It is Russia and what they are doing. That the USA have their own problems is true, but not the topic.

The Russia style doesn’t directly attack civilians, unlike the US method.

I think you missed most of the news regarding the war in Ukraine. The Russian Army is targeting the infrastructure and civilians. So many rockets hit civilian houses in Kyiv and other cities. Schools, hospitals, you name it. Everything is fair game for the russian Artillery. Some observer even muse about that the Russian Army is targeting civilians deliberately as a tactic of terror to instill a war weariness and a longing for peace out of self preservation.

Control of the black sea is universally useful. Imagine if Russia could threaten a sea invasion of Israel if they keep up the genocide.

If they had control over the Black Sea they still couldn't threaten a sea invasion of Israel. You would have to have control over the Mediterranian.
But let's assume they had control over the Black Sea. Why would they try to stop Israel? At the moment the war in the Gaza Strip is not something they would like to be involved in since it is a distraction for the world and it is a good way to siphon off military goods from the USA.

Alaska was never meaningfully Russian, the natives and the cities built there have nothing to do with russia. Not so for Crimea.

Alaska would be a perfect starting point for conquering Canada and the USA, control of the Bering Sea, and the ressources hidden beneath the surface. But that's besides the point.
Crimea hadn't been part of the Soviet Union since 1954. Since then it's been part of Ukraine. So the question would be more along the lines: how long would it take for you to something not be a part of another country?
To illustrate my argument: Europe is a continent filled with a history of big empires that rose and fall. So if you go about 150 years into the past, middle europe was dominated by Germany (the Kaiserreich). Would you say that Germany has any claim to the now polish provinces that were german 80 years ago (Danzig, Pommern, Königsberg et. al.)? If we go further into the past, we have Sweden for most of the Baltic Sea. France would also be a strong contender looking at what Napoleon subjugated.
And so on and so on. You can't just go into the past and pick a date. The ramifications are too complex.

[–] Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Crimea was in the USSR, no? So it's been 30 years since the area which is now Russia had control of Crimea. I have no idea how long ago is too long, but probably a human lifespan maximum is reasonable. Part of the calculus I'm using is literally just "can the country win a war for the area?". Which is why Alaska is not debatable. Like, Russia really wants Crimea, they will most likely win the war eventually, why not let them have it if it means ending the war? If they were to then try to take more land, that's when we put our foot down. Sure it's a bad precedent, but who says we have to follow precedent? It's really just America that cares about Russia not getting stronger, the rest of the world should want all of Russia, China, and America to be roughly equal.

If Alaska is a great starting point for invasion, then we definitely should not let them take Alaska.

[–] nuscheltier@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Crimea was in the USSR, no?

Yes, you're right. I thought Ukraine was kinda independent since they had a seat in the UN, but I was wrong. So it's been roughly 30 years, yes.

Like, Russia really wants Crimea, they will most likely win the war eventually, why not let them have it if it means ending the war?

And that is exactly what Gian and I are refering to. In the 1930s it was "If Germany gets Austria, it would be peace in our time." "If Germany gets Sudetenland, it would be peace in our time." But Hitler was never satisfied.

If they were to then try to take more land, that’s when we put our foot down.

And here lies the problem. De facto they already had Crimea. There is no way around that they occupied it and no one lifted a finger. Now they want the Donbass Region with all the iron and coal. Luhansk and Donetsk.
So "If Russia gets Crimea, there will be peace in our time." doesn't ring quite so good now. "If Russia gets Donbass, there will be peace in our time" is the exact same mistake that was made 90 years ago. And those mistakes cost many lives.

It’s really just America that cares about Russia not getting stronger, the rest of the world should want all of Russia, China, and America to be roughly equal.

No. The European Union also cares about Russia getting stronger. Well I for myself don't want an authoritarian governmant to just invade neighbours because they feel like it. The European Union tried to integrate Russia by trading with them, but we see that that didn't quite get the result that was hoped for.
I do get, what you're trying to say that China, Russia and the USA should be roughly equal, but the EU is missing and to be honest, two Superpowers being authoritarian is more frightening than anything else.

[–] Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't really see a distinction between Crimea and Donbass/Donetsk. To me it's the same placeAnd supposedly the people of those regions voted to leave Ukraine, right? So that essentially makes Russia equivalent to France in the American revolution.

It'd be great if no one ever invaded anywhere else, but it won't happen. Best we can do is resolve it as peacefully as possible. I see democracy as the same as simulated war: one side has 20,000 men, one has 15,000, let's just assume the bigger army will win and skip the war altogether. Russia has a bigger army, we should just call the war and be done with it. There's no reason global politics have to adhere to precedent.

[–] nuscheltier@feddit.de 0 points 8 months ago

And supposedly the people of those regions voted to leave Ukraine, right?

Supposedly. One side says it were fair elections the other doubts that. So, who is right? The side that had soldiers at the voting booths, oppresses the people there, deports and kills the people living there, or the one to which the regions belong that wants to live in peace?

Best we can do is resolve it as peacefully as possible. I see democracy as the same as simulated war: one side has 20,000 men, one has 15,000, let’s just assume the bigger army will win and skip the war altogether.

The war shouldn't have broken out. Why? Budapest Memorandum. Russia was supposed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. So Russia doesn't need to adhere to treaties because they have more soldiers?
If we're talking about active soldiers, how about North Korea annexes just about everyone? They have about 7 million soldiers (soldiers, reservists and paramilitaries). So they can just say that everyone should bow to their will? So they can just say "We take the United States"? [1]

Since I made these points over and over again that the votings for independence are not fair and equal, that Russia is violating international law, and they are attacking an independent country, I will stop here since we're going round in circles.