Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/10013170

The war in Ukraine is “existential for our Europe and for France”, Mr Macron said in the interview on France 2 and TF1.

“Do you think that the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Estonians, the Romanians and the Bulgarians could remain at peace for a second [in the event of a Russian victory in Ukraine]?” he asked. “If Russia wins this war, Europe’s credibility would be reduced to zero.”

  • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    We need to start defining what a win and what a loss is. I feel that this could vary on some parts

    • crispy_kilt@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s very simple. Make the occupiers fuck off behind Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders.

    • nivenkos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      43
      ·
      8 months ago

      Honestly it feels like the only reasonable outcome is a division like Korea, and focus on modernising and liberalising West Ukraine.

      • Aermis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        With Ukrainian family in kharkiv, Odessa, and kiev this is not a reasonable outcome in the slightest.

        • fustigation769curtain@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Yeah, that’s what losing feels like.

          I’m guessing you’re going to resort to terrorism if Russia conquers Ukraine? Could be interesting.

          • Aermis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            They’re still being killed there. Sure not occupied yet, but you said it’s the one reasonable thing to do.

            • nivenkos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              22
              ·
              8 months ago

              And peace would put an end to that.

              I don’t get the idea of doggedly pursuing liberation of the Crimea, etc. when it isn’t realistic and people are losing their lives.

              It’s better to have an okay-ish peace now and reorganise the country than to face total collapse if shortages continue.

              Perfection is the enemy of the good.

              • Aermis@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Dude I’m talking about ceceding kharkiv and Odessa to Russia which is what you are saying is a reasonable solution

                • fustigation769curtain@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Have you ever considered that Ukraine is just an investment for the West? They’d rather have Ukrainians dying than their own soldiers. They don’t actually think Ukraine can win, only weaken Russia.

                  This is what all Western military strategists are saying.

                  • Aermis@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Considering the crippling wheat and other exports Ukraine provides for the west, yeah, there’s a lot of reasons to invest into Ukrainian victory and survival. I’m not niave to believe the US cares about Ukrainian lives.

                • nivenkos@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  They could hold the current borders for peace. That is the most likely outcome.

                  • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    13
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    Tell ya what, rent hasn’t been cheap. How about I come to your house and set a few things on fire and camp out in your living room and refuse to leave. I won’t hurt you if you don’t enter the living room, but I’ve claimed the whole room to myself. And you have no way of knowing if I’ll decide to take the kitchen next despite saying I won’t. Would you accept this? Because this is what you’re saying Ukraine should let Russia do to them.

                    The only peace that can be achieved here is for Russia to be defeated and driven out of Ukraine entirely. Otherwise, all you are doing is enabling Russia to regroup, rearm and attack again for more territory.

      • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        So… west Ukraine up til Moscow and east Ukraine for the rest?

        Edit: apparently we need an /s

        • nivenkos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          8 months ago

          That isn’t realistic, and Russia has nuclear weapons too.

          The best bet is that the regime will be toppled in Russia with time, just like the USSR was.

          It’s better to lead by example with free institutions and free markets - the people of Russia will want freedom too.

          • Maalus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            The US has nuclear weapons. Europe has nuclear weapons.

            Bullshit about “free institutions and free market”. That was the thought after the Soviet Union collapsed. And what do we have now? The exact opposite of what Russia “was supposed to be through open markets”.

            • nivenkos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yeah, and they would use them if they had foreign armies pushing into their territory.

              But no efforts were made to really democratise and modernise Russia - they let oligarchs rise up from criminal gangs, etc., it’d have been better to have a more controlled process like Glasnost.

              • gian @lemmy.grys.it
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                8 months ago

                Yeah, and they would use them if they had foreign armies pushing into their territory.

                I think that here the problem is not to invade Russia, but that Russia need to left Ukraine.

              • RidderSport@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Yeah because Russia was not capitulated. They were a disfunctional, but sovereign country. You cannot dictate anything on them. You can lead by example or make suggestions, but ultimately it’s the will of the people that matters. In that regard the situation is rather similar to Germany post WW1. A people not yet ready for democracy and no one there to force them to. In Germany’s case it took the entire to be bombed to the ground, millions dead and being occupied by 4 not so emphatic countries.

                • maynarkh@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I wouldn’t compare interwar Germany and post-USSR Russia this way. On the one hand, post-WWI Germany absolutely had dictates placed on them that were big enough and were meant to cripple the country. On the other hand, WWI wasn’t about democracy, but that the autocrats ruling Germany wanted colonial empires, like the autocrats ruling the Entente had.

                  Yes, electing Hitler was not the correct path, but I guess it’s hard to see any path at all when English tourists laugh at the cheap prices at the café you work at while you wouldn’t be able to afford even one of them from your wages.

                  Russia did not turn out better, since there was no real regime change after the end of the USSR. Putin was in the KGB. I’m sure most people who are in power now were in the elite in the USSR as well.

                  It’s not “the people not yet ready for democracy”, it’s that the instruments of power had the same people manning them. If it was just the people, a lot of the US seems “not yet ready for democracy” with being hell-bent on electing a dictator.

                  • lad@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Russia did not turn out better, since there was no real regime change after the end of the USSR. Putin was in the KGB. I’m sure most people who are in power now were in the elite in the USSR as well.

                    Actually Putin became president about ten years after the USSR collapsed, so there may have been a window of opportunity

              • lad@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                I think there were some efforts, some may even worked. There were also efforts from the inside, but in the end those efforts were not enough, it seems

          • gian @lemmy.grys.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            8 months ago

            That isn’t realistic, and Russia has nuclear weapons too.

            And so ? Should we let them to do whatever they want just because “we have nukes” ? I

            • nivenkos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              8 months ago

              No, Biden should send the US army as he has the ability to do so.

              But he is too weak to stand up to Putin, especially in an election year, so compromise is necessary.

              • circasurvivor
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                8 months ago

                You think Biden is unwilling to start WW3 because it’s an election year?

                • nivenkos@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Keeping the troops in Ukrainian territory wouldn’t start WW3. The UK already has troops there.

              • gian @lemmy.grys.it
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                No, Biden should send the US army as he has the ability to do so.

                US does not care about Ukraine, they only antogonize Russia. Then yeah, given what we have seen on the battlefield, if NATO will go boot on the ground Russia probably will have some serious problem (not that now they have not).

                But he is too weak to stand up to Putin, especially in an election year, so compromise is necessary.

                Maybe from a US point of view, but here we are discussing Europe.
                It is about time that Europe (and EU) begin to be what we say we are.

                I think that here Macron is damn right. Russia must not win this war because any concession we do to Russia now will be seen as “we can do whatever we want because in the end they fold”.
                Putin tried to take Ukraine exactly because EU and US did nothing when he took Crimea (if not talking).

                And this whatever the US say.