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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 362 points 3 days ago (5 children)

It's fucking ridiculous he has to say it out loud

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 89 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Tbh a lot of people in the states are under the impression that we CAN do precisely that, because we absolutely have done in the past. But this is also kind of a whole different ballgame, in a ton of pretty crucial ways.

[–] P1nkman@lemmy.world 50 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No world leader = hey, you orange turd, you do NOT speak on our behalf.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago (1 children)

this is why our teachers taught us the difference between can and may (one implies ability, the other permission) because all of south america is looking at this like "fucking right dude"

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)

As an American, I have always found our conduct in South America in particular to be utterly reprehensible.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] dance_ninja@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago

It is, but that's what Trump did with Afghanistan.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tired_n_bored@lemmy.world 114 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (18 children)

I am so sad by how Ukraine has been handled.

The West should have been an overwhelming power against Russian imperialism. Ukraine should have been given everything from the beginning, no strings attached, with no self-imposed red lines.

They will swallow another democracy in 10-20 years and the cycle repeats.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 3 points 1 day ago

Yep. It was a sad excuse not to intervene in 2014, but now? Pathetic.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 27 points 2 days ago

And that would likely have ended the war sooner, causing less people to die, and making Putin less likely to try something like it in the future.

[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Tactically, the plan is to make Russia bleed to death rather than temporarily paralyse it.

Maximizing the loss of russian life and draining the russian economy to the point that the population won't tolerate any further war is the goal. It's unfortunate that this is at the cost of ongoing war in Ukraine.

[–] GuitarSon2024@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is a solid take, but the other side of the issue is the question of how long will it take the brainwashed Russian population to realize the economy has passed a point of no return? Outside of major cities much of Russia lives in 3rd world poverty. Will they even notice if the ruble falls to zero?

[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Some might not notice a change in the economy, but they will notice that their sons are being taken and that they are not coming back.

Approximately 1 in 1000 Russian males have now been killed. How many more will have to die for the average Russian to say "no more" is a tough question.

[–] frozenpopsicle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That statistic sounds off. 1 in 100?

[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I used a population of 143,000,000 divided by an estimated death toll in Ukraine of 70,000 and assumed half of the russian population is female.

1 in 100 might be correct if you only consider men of a fighting age.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Holy shit, I haven't looked at the numbers in a while, but

  • Russian population: 140 000 000
  • Male population: 70 000 000
  • Male fighting age population (18 - 60 years): Very approximately 50 000 000 (I honestly just made up a number a bit smaller than 70)
  • Documented KIA: 85 000
  • Projected actual KIA: 170 000 (Note: Prigozin claimed 120 000 KIA in June 2023)
  • Projected number of severely wounded: Roughly 500 000

Result:

  • Roughly 0.34 % fighting age men killed
  • Roughly 1 % of fighting age men severely wounded

This has to be getting close to a point where most Russians know someone personally that has been killed or severely wounded in the war...

[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I heard a while ago that a very well connected person (the sort of person that doesn't need to work and could spend all their free time maintaining family relations and friendships) would really only be able to maintain family relations and friendships with about two hundred people. The sort of people that say "I have 1000 friends on Facebook" are talking complete bollocks, there's a huge difference between a relationship/friendship and an acquaintance that you haven't talked to for fifteen years. The average person truly knows many less people than this, usually in the low dozens.

Using your figures and assuming that these relationships are 50/50 male/female, even these very well connected people would statistically still know less than one injured soldier and have less than a 1/3 chance of personally knowing someone that was killed.

I know this comment assumes and extrapolates quite a bit and the idea is somewhat of a tangent from the original comment, but I think it's quite interesting.

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

True, I did a quick calculation and the probability of knowing someone killed or severely injured is

  • 12.5% if you know 10 people
  • 23.5% if you know 20 people
  • 33.5% if you know 30 people
  • 41.5% if you know 40 people
  • 49% if you know 50 people

So around ⅓ Russians know at least one person that's been killed or wounded, and around 10-20% of Russians have someone in their inner circle of friends and family (10-20 closest) that have been killed for wounded.

For this last number to reach 50%, the number of killed+wounded needs to reach about 5% of the fighting age population (≈2.5 million).

Of course, the above assumes that casualties are randomly distributed in the population. In reality it's likely that fewer people know someone killed or wounded, and that those that know someone likely know more, because of the casualties being disproportionately effecting more rural regions of the country.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

The comments are peak internet dumpster fire 🍿

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 97 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

This is arguably the whole point of the war.

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 30 points 3 days ago (3 children)

For Ukraine yes, but as far as Ukraine's allies go? Only in principle. In reality we help Ukraine because it fucks up Russia, but we don't give Ukraine the support it really needs or asks for because of [insert litany of excuses for years of delay on new weapons systems].

Proxy wars are nasty business, and Ukraine has precious little say in any of the macro decisions. Russia and Russia's ennemies collectively hold all the negociation leverage.
Zelenskyy's only hope is that domestic pressure will force the West to make a genuine effort at preserving as much of Ukraine's sovereignty as possible, hence this media intervention.

And he's right to be worried, because the situation in Palestine shows, again, that most Western governments only stick to their stated principles when it's politically convenient and shrug at literal genocide when it's not. And the Russian propaganda machine is going to work overtime to make us think that any Russian concession to Ukraine would be against European interests.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 89 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

Unfortunately, Trump will do exactly that regardless.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 56 points 3 days ago (12 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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] DicJacobus@lemmy.world 40 points 3 days ago (12 children)

America can tell Russia Ukraine formally surrenders, and that the moon is made of cheese, it isnt going to stop anyone from fighting to protect themselves.

The fact that even western countries seem to think that there can be negotiations about the fate of Ukraine and its people, without the Ukrainian voice present, is laughable and directley supports Putin and the Russian Mafia's fantasy-narrative.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 72 points 3 days ago (36 children)

You'd think this would be a fairly cut and dry issue - the countries helping Ukraine wouldn't like it either if another country started negotiating terms on their behalf (especially not with a monster like Putin).

Ukraine and its people should be the ones to decide their own fate.

I swear people who think otherwise must've read David vs. Goliath and sided with the Goliath.

load more comments (36 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›