fuck putin!
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
467 points (99.2% liked)
World News
41185 readers
3775 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 !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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How about to 2013 line?
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)
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.
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?
Ukraine doesn’t have the luxury of stopping Trump or anyone else—it’s not about controlling his actions but surviving the fallout. If Trump cozies up to Saudi Arabia or Russia, Ukraine’s best move is to double down on alliances with Europe and any U.S. factions still committed to its sovereignty.
The cost? Likely higher dependence on European support and a brutal recalibration of strategy to counteract waning American backing. But the alternative—appeasing Trump’s whims—is worse. It risks turning Ukraine into a bargaining chip in his transactional games, where sovereignty is just another line item on a deal sheet.
Ukraine’s survival hinges on resilience, not waiting for foreign leaders to act rationally. Betting otherwise is playing Russian roulette—literally.
Ukraine doesn’t have the luxury of stopping Trump or anyone else
So why would they try? Why are you characterising them not attempting the impossible as "banking on Trump"?
Noone but MAGA has Trump as Plan A, B, and C.
Ukraine's Plan A here is dictated by happenstance: Gotta wait for Trump because he's gotta have his try. Plan B is going it alone with Europe. Plan C is their own military production. Plan D is partisan warfare. Ukraine is prepared for all of them.
They should have a plan E, which should actually be plan A, and dust off those old nuclear designs and build a bomb.
Why would you think Ukraine is banking on Trump? That’s not strategy—it’s survival instinct. They’re not playing a chess game where every piece moves in perfect order; they’re scrambling to keep the board from flipping entirely.
Your "Plan A, B, C" framework assumes Ukraine has the luxury of options. They don’t. Every “plan” you outlined depends on external powers acting in good faith, which history shows is a laughable gamble. Europe might step up, but only after dragging its feet through bureaucratic sludge. The U.S.? A partisan circus.
Ukraine isn’t waiting for Trump or anyone else to save them—they’re hedging against betrayal while clinging to sovereignty. Pretending otherwise oversimplifies a geopolitical nightmare into a bad flowchart.
Why would you think Ukraine is banking on Trump?
I don't. You implied they do:
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.
If you did not want to be interpreted that way, may I suggest not using language such as "reeks of tactical nihilism" right after criticising Zelensky's approach.
What he's actually doing here is framing what "success" and "failure" means for Trump's initiative, "If Trump can't get this then it was a failure". The point itself (pre-Feb-2022 lines) is rather unlikely in practical terms, it's chosen so that a) Putin will not accept it, he wants way more and b) It is not Ukraine’s maximum position, either, so that afterwards it cannot be said "Ukraine could have had peace if they were only reasonable and realistic".
There's also a reason Zelensky only talked about "Russia must withdraw to", not "Russia can keep". Sounds more like "If Russia withdraws there, we can start talking about exchanging the rest for Kursk". They're establishing the desired framing of the Trump negotiations without giving up anything, even if Trump should succeed in pressuring Putin.
Now I don't want to imply that Zelensky is running circles around both Trump and Putin when it comes to 4D chess. It's not the man, it's his whole administration. They've gobsmacked me more than once.
You’re right, I misstepped by replying to my own post. Let’s chalk that up to a momentary lapse in focus rather than an intentional attempt at self-debate. But since we’re here, let’s address the substance of your reply.
The framing of Zelenskyy’s demands as “tactical nihilism” wasn’t meant to dismiss his position but to highlight the futility of relying on Trump’s erratic tendencies. You’re correct that Ukraine isn’t setting itself up for failure intentionally, but desperation often forces impossible choices.
As for the distinction between “Russia must withdraw” and “Russia can keep,” it’s a semantic shift that underscores how little leverage Ukraine has. They’re playing a losing hand with no good options, and the world’s apathy is the real indictment here.
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?
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(22 replies)
view more: next ›