That will change. The first 1560 days oft a 3 days special military Operation are always the hardest!!!111
post
Take it all and do better for the people within
Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦
wont be satisfied until crimea is theres again. China can chip and retak historic lands, "norther manchuria", although they are pretty much taking over russia economically(through thier natural resources in thier remote regions.
Yeah, people see China sending stuff to Russia and think they're helping, because they've been told they're "allies". China is gaining a lot from Russia's failure though. If they don't actually take over land by the end of this, they will effectively control all the resources in large parts of modern day Russia.
I saw a comment not too long ago about how China should convince Russia to get out of the war, as if it's harming China. People just don't understand the geopolitics going on. I don't expect them to, but people should at least be aware no state is doing anything out of kindness. It's always at least attempting to benefit themselves. For Europe, Ukraine losing would be a horrible result, for example. There may be a humanitarian aspect, but there's always something being gained.
If they don’t actually take over land by the end of this, they will effectively control all the resources in large parts of modern day Russia.
China has plenty of land already. Why would they officially want something with piss poor infrastructure and corrupt officials. It's a lot easier just to buy what they want, specially now when Russia doesn't really have an option but to sell. It's also politically much, much more easier than actually moving borders. Also, that's what China has been doing already for quite a while in Africa (and likely in other places too).
Are you kidding? China has always wanted the eastern part of Russia. Also, China not wanting it would apply to Russia too, right? If it's worthless, why is anyone claiming it? It obviously isn't worthless. At minimum, control of the coast and rivers are valuable. There's also tons of natural resources there.
It's a lot easier just to buy what they want, specially now when Russia doesn't really have an option but to sell. It's also politically much, much more easier than actually moving borders.
That is buying what they want. And moving borders isn't that hard. They just need to reach an agreement. It's not like they have physically go and move some line. Borders don't exist in reality. It's just what states agree to say they control. The biggest issue would be going in and collecting taxes and whatnot. China's got the beurocratic infrastructure to handle that pretty easily though, and it's not like there's many people or much wealth (in the people) there anyway. It's all about the resources. Like you said, they've been doing it in Africa. Why wouldn't they do it in their backyard?
And moving borders isn’t that hard.
It actually kind of is. Depending on the laws on both countries. There was a petition that Norway would've gifted a top of one mountain to Finland when Finland celebrated 100 years of independence. Border would've moved something like 20 meters in the middle of nowhere, without any resources or pretty much anything else of any value. It would've just made the officially highest spot in Finland a bit higher.
It just wasn't legally possible. Constitution in Norway says that the only way to lose land is to lose it in a war and changing their constitution isn't really practical just for that kind of feat. Also there was more or less serious discussion that what if Finland claims a "war" against Norway and conquers that hilltop, but that would've meant that Finland (not a NATO member at a time) would be in a war with a NATO country, which is not trivial either.
There was also legal issues on Finland side of things too, but those would've been far simpler to resolve.
I don't know about legal situation in Russia nor in China, so that might not apply, but in general countries tend to have legal limits on how they can lose or gain land. China has not annexed areas from Africa, they've just bought the rights for resources and use them as they see fit, but internationally agreed borders stay where they are. If they actually took land from Russia that would cause other kinds of legal issues, like having to build stuff in there to meet their legal minimum standards, set up administration and whatever their legal system requires. So, in many ways it's just far easier to buy what they want and leave the border and land ownership politics out of the equation.
No bc pootin won’t allow China to take over.
Lol it’d be wild to see China own Russia and a lot of Chinese ppl move in.
What do you mean he won't allow it? If it's literally selling it off for military aid, which is something he critically needs, that seems exactly like something he'd do.
I don't see many people moving into Siberia no matter who owns it though. Few people live there, and few want to. It'll mostly be for control of waterways and resources, but also for strategic control to push Russia away from its more critical locations.
Brilliant! Ukraine is today in a better position than at any time before in the war. I hope eu can continue to increase support and by doing so create a new European defence paradigm with Ukraine at it's core.
Ukraine isn't at the core of Europe though
It's the only one that has real experience with modern warfare and technology in this century. So they have know how.
It's going to be the outpost for the new EU/Nato does not matter where it geographically is, maybe you took that too literally.
Why does Europe want to ally with Ukraine? That will cause the conflict with Russia that you're presumably saying we need defense against.
cause conflict with Russia
Are you talking about a new conflict and not the current literal invasion? Because they kinda already crossed that bridge. Then it got blown up like 2 or 3 times.
Sorry, are you trying to claim that Russia has invaded an EU member?
Europe includes Ukraine, and they are already allies, just without a mutual defense agreement.
Ukraine is not a member of any defense pact or the EU.
Ukraine receives security assurances under the Budapest memorandum (which Russia violated).
"Europe" is not a signatory to the Budapest memorandum. Neither is NATO, nor the EU. So how this applies to "Europe", which is what the conversation you're responding to is about, is a mystery at best.
The UK and US are signatories. NATO is not. Considering that NATO willfully violated the UN Charter (which the Budapest memorandum rests upon) by bombing Yugoslavia in 1999, as well as later actions, it's a pretty selective to claim that that is applicable.
Europe also includes Russia
Read again slowly.
Sit down and actually think about your statements.
with Ukraine at it's core
At the core of the defense paradigm. Since Ukraine has a gigantic military (currently more personnel than even France), pretty cutting edge work on drone and anti-drone warfare and has been fighting for years against the EU’s biggest land threat. They’re not saying Ukraine is at the core of Europe the continent…
Why is Russia the "EU's biggest land threat"?
That's exactly the point. Allying with Ukraine is the main thing that drives that.
Previously the European states learned that letting some major power go around willy-nilly annexing strips of land and entire states from their neighbors does not end well. They’re on Russia’s list of unfriendly countries, are subject to Russian influence operations that are not especially appreciated and there is some evidence to suggest that Russia would seek to reclaim lands from eastern EU states if given the opportunity. Plus the occasional bombing and constant rhetoric against them. So obviously they will prefer to back Ukraine rather than letting Russia absorb it, become stronger and start eyeing the next country.
that letting some major power go around willy-nilly annexing strips of land and entire states from their neighbors does not end well
Which power was that?
and there is some evidence to suggest that Russia would seek to reclaim lands from eastern EU states if given the opportunity
What evidence is that?
Because, again, the logic from you chicken hawks seems only to be that Europe must support Ukraine fighting Russia, because it is obvious Russia is an enemy, based on the fact that they are fighting Ukraine.
Notice the issue there? Nowhere is there any threat to Europe listed.
and constant rhetoric against them
wait, so rhetoric is a casus belli now?
In that case, isn't this NAFO style crap direct aggression? They're very loud about how they're willing to fight to the last Ukrainian - of course, not when they'd be in danger themselves - but how it's good that Russians are dying.
Russia has made no threat I'm aware of to attack any EU member. If you have evidence of such, present it. Otherwise, your weasel words are just that.
Which power was that?
Germany and the USSR were carving off regions and conquering small states left and right in the lead-up to WWII, both in independent adventures and their team-up via the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Munich Agreement is pretty egregious with Hitler claiming it was the last territorial demand he had in Europe and Chamberlain coming back claiming he had achieved peace for our time. Only for it to turn out that Germany would use all the fortifications, industry, manpower and resources it had gained at the expense of its neighbor to roll over the rest of Czechoslovakia. So Germany became a much more imposing force than it had started out as because folks were content to just watch it snowball and not help Czechoslovakia defend itself.
What evidence is that?
Because, again, the logic from you chicken hawks seems only to be that Europe must support Ukraine fighting Russia, because it is obvious Russia is an enemy, based on the fact that they are fighting Ukraine.
Notice the issue there? Nowhere is there any threat to Europe listed.
wait, so rhetoric is a casus belli now?
In that case, isn’t this NAFO style crap direct aggression? They’re very loud about how they’re willing to fight to the last Ukrainian - of course, not when they’d be in danger themselves - but how it’s good that Russians are dying.
Russia has made no threat I’m aware of to attack any EU member. If you have evidence of such, present it. Otherwise, your weasel words are just that.
The rhetoric does matter when Russian politicians are threatening the EU all the time by saying they’ll nuke them, that ex. Baltic independence isn’t legal, that they’re states at war, etc. But there’s concrete action too. A Russian drone strike just hit an apartment in Romania and Medvedev is saying it won’t be the last one. They’ve set off parcel bombs in EU countries. Blown up ammunition depots. Violate their airspace, send assassins into their countries, cyberattacks, influence operations to boost separatists and groups like Brexit… and even if it weren’t doing all of that, a country that conquers smaller neighbors is plenty concerning on its own.
Yeah. And how exactly was Nazi Germany stopped, again? That's the point you seem to be skipping over with your false equivalencies here.
Violate their airspace, send assassins into their countries
Blow up their pipelines, seize funds, and the like too?
cyberattacks, influence operations to boost separatists and groups like Brexit
So color revolutions for thee but not for me are fine?
But hey, maybe we just have different ideas about what proper international relations look like. I'm sure that, considering you're claiming Russia has attacked Europe, you're now en route to fight in Ukraine, right?
It was ultimately stopped with world war in the way it turned out, but that could have been headed off far less bloodily earlier on. If the powers that be had not gifted the Sudetenland to Germany then Czechoslovakia actually had a pretty decent set-up to defend with many fortifications at the rugged borders, far more defensible than the flat north European plain Poland had to defend against a Germany with millions more people, vast amounts of looted gold reserves and extra years of deficit spending to build a far more massive army. It could have held on while the west mobilized and attacked and wrecked Germany’s military via multiple fronts on a much smaller regional scale.
Going back earlier with the remilitarization of the Rhineland the German troops had orders to immediately retreat and if they saw any armed resistance or so much as a single French uniform. The demilitarized Rhineland was key to the cordon sanitaire of French alliances that ringed Germany.
Expansionist states don’t become easier to deal with as they grow bigger so unless you already have and expect to keep amazing relations you should probably not them keep growing unchecked. And even if you do have amazing relations you have to keep in mind that politics can change on a dime and throw that in peril.
So color revolutions for thee but not for me are fine?
Glad to see you’ve graduated on from Russia posing no threat to EU to positing that it’s only fair for them to be threatening. And against big threats you prepare countermeasures, such as not letting them swallow up your neighbors.
And against big threats you prepare countermeasures, such as not letting them swallow up your neighbors.
Ummmm isn't that the exact logic Russia is using to justify their aggression against Ukraine?
Now try reading the entire sentence!
spoiler
Ukraine is at the core of the defence paradigm ... not the core of Europe.
Defense of what? Using words you don't understand doesn't change the fact you haven't defined what you're trying to say.
Which is basically a tautology that just sees fighting Russia as a good thing on its own, but without any reason given.
So again, sit down and actually think about what you're trying to say. You'll come off far less stupid.
I see someone has explained the obvious already, so I'll just defer to them.
the obvious being you guys don't know what paradigm means, or that you have no reason to claim Ukraine is central to European defense against Russia?
I'm sorry the word paradigm confuses you, but we do have dictionaries. It's easy too check the meaning of the word and not look stupid.
Also, if you don't know what someone means, you can also ask, not just think they are stupid because you don't understand them.
It doesn't confuse me. It doesn't mean what you think it does, as Ukraine is not a template.
Look, take it easy. I know you are a kid, because you lack the self-confidence to ask people what they mean (and you shared a cartoon). But I can tell you, people that ask look way smarter than people that try to make it into a weird confrontation. Today you can just paste stuff into chatgpt or something and let it explain and for sure write a better response than you did, no offense. Plus, if you want an honest exchange of opinion, you must likely won't get it with an arrogant behavior, but by taking a few minutes and replying with something thoughtful. You got my 10 minutes, but that's done. Have a nice evening.
Yeah, I'm middle-aged. You're on quite a roll here.
Just don't use words you don't understand, it's a bad look.
How embarassing then. Anyways what people are refusing to tell you (because it's obvious) is that being at the center of a paradigm and being at the center of a geographical landmass are different things.
Ukraine is neither the center geographically nor strategically of any defense of the EU.
being at the center of a paradigm
Yeah, once again, you don't know what that word means. I suggest you look it up.
Ok, double-checked the definition, it means exactly what I thought it does. You're going to have to explain your argument like an adult if you want me to respond further to explain how you are wrong.
it means exactly what I thought it does
Oh, OK. What is the replicable pattern of "defense" that is Ukraine, then?
You seem to mean strategy. Ukraine is not the center of European defense strategy, but at least that word isn't just nonsense.
to explain your argument like an adult
Yes, this does feel like I'm talking to a 3 year old
The beat you can do is "no u"?
Anyways /uj for a second, "paradigm" has more than one definition. I think you're using a different one than we were, which is roughly "a method or framework for thought". A paradigm is a way of thinking about something, or a set of tools and methods used to do so. This is the definition used in the phrase "paradigm shift" and is pretty common; it overlaps with, but is different to, using "paradigm" to refer to an exceptional example of something to replicate. Saying Ukraine will be at the center of the european defense paradigm means that it will be used as a foundational point of reference when discussing defense, and its capabilities will be key to our defense strategy.
Saying Ukraine will be at the center of the european defense paradigm means that it will be used as a foundational point of reference when discussing defense, and its capabilities will be key to our defense strategy.
And again, that is meaningless unless you're claiming you will replicate Ukraine's defense in other places.
Nor is Ukraine "foundational", unless you think that all of Europe is a former part of the USSR that was also the center of WWII against the Russian state of the time. If you'd like to suggest some other country that fits that "paradigm", I'm all ears.
Ukraine isn't foundational - it's a proxy war now abandoned by the US that too much of Europe has decided to let anchor it.
the United States is halfway around the world, that doesn't stop us from projecting power
and then have them restart thier nuke program. so that russia wont invade again.
Why is stuff like this allowed but if I were to call for the death of every israeli soldier I would probably get banned?
I've seen "Death Death To The IDF" on here plenty of times. I also don't believe that wishing death on people who participate in unmitigated genocide should be frowned upon.
But they said they wanted the russian soldiers to die, not the russian military to be dissolved. "Death to the IDF" is against the institution IDF not singular soldiers.
And don't forget the dehumanising language which certainly would have gotten me banned if I said the same about Israelis (at least on lemmy.world).
To be fair i DID SAY preferably alive so it's literally true that i did the opposite of call for their death :p They need to go home though. Back home to Russia. Not Ukraine.
That said, I DO IN FACT believe the Jewish peoples should have a safe nation to live in. ISRAEL IS NOT SUCH A PLACE. They should go back to Europe and stop trying to colonize indigenous people. Or hell, I would LOVE for them to live right here in New England! I will in fact NOT shoot rockets at them because I want them to live in peace and safety HERE, FAR AWAY FROM PALESTINE
I think you're safe: https://lemmy.world/post/47583805
But not from Israel.
Would you? Would think it entirely depends on where you left such a comment
On the neoliberal lemmy.world I would almost certainly at least get my comment removed
It's going to get removed any second now just believe in yourself 🙏
Making death wishes in general shouldn't be tolerated, I think that's a basic principle to uphold.
is that why RUSSIA " is researching ways of forcing the territories they already hold to be permanent" recently.
That may be, but he still right. The frontlines are proof. Russia has failed to capture significant amount of territory in 3 over years. All the changes have been comically minor relative to the manpower and resources used, and so far this year, Russia has actually been losing more territory than they captured.
Oh no, you so smart. We so stupid. Praise you.
😂
People know what's the deal. Especially people here. Things have changed, that's not news, you can read that in European newspapers and you can read it between the lines in Russian ones.
It was a special operation at the beginning. It's still going.
I think it's safe to say the war isn't going how Russia wants it to, or zelensky would have been replaced/killed by now
I disagree with your conclusion as it applies here - but I appreciate the argument. (And upvoted, as it adds to the discussion). I think between these two nations one is the underdog and more in touch with people and reality.
That said, Zelinsky is absolutely a charismatic political leader and it's healthy to critically analyze anything you hear from such sources. In this case, the statement is definitely a bit bravado nicely coupled with reassurance to their people. I do also believe it tracks with what's publicly available on the warfront. Nonetheless, the interpretation is clearly biased (to make their own side look good).
Thank you for your thoughts. I also see you're getting downvoted by the echo chamber. I appreciate it, at least.
top 76 comments