President Volodymyr Zelensky believes that Ukraine’s partners “are afraid of Russia losing the war” and would like Kyiv “to win in such a way that Russia does not lose,” Zelensky said in a meeting with journalists attended by the Kyiv Independent.

Kyiv’s allies “fear” Russia’s loss in the war against Ukraine because it would involve “unpredictable geopolitics,” according to Zelensky. “I don’t think it works that way. For Ukraine to win, we need to be given everything with which one can win,” he said.

His statement came on May 16 amid Russia’s large-scale offensive in Kharkiv Oblast and ongoing heavy battles further east. In a week, Russian troops managed to advance as far as 10 kilometers in the northern part of Kharkiv Oblast, according to Zelensky.

MBFC
Archive

  • Rimu@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yeah although if Russia wins it’d involve “unstable geopolitics” too.

    This could be a long war.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I said it many times before - no one wants this war to end except for Ukrainians. It’s just a very profitable venture for the rest of the world.

      • jabjoe@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Putin will want it over. It’s an embarrassment to him that Ukrainians don’t want him and have resisted him so effectively.

        • Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          When billions of dollars worth of equipment is shipped to Ukraine, that’s billions of dollars going to the American military industrial complex. Some of them might prefer if Russia weren’t dramatically weakened, so as to still have something to point to when lobbying for additional military spending.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Different countries profit in different ways.

          US got rid of old weapons stock and pumped shit loads of money into making new weapons.

          Norway started selling fuck ton of oil and gas to Europe to the point that they now own almost 2% of the world through their sovereign fund.

          Heck, even North Korea has finally entered the global market through trade deals with Russia.

          The list goes on. Sadly only Ukraine is suffering.

      • golli@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        For the US maybe, but I don’t think it is profitabel for Europe.

        Refugees aren’t cheap (even though ukrainian people might integrate easier than others and later add value), a good part of money for weapon purchases flows towards America since they have more immediate capacities, and long term we do want to integrate Ukraine, which means Europe will ultimately bear a significant chunk of rebuilding costs.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Ukrainian refugees are great. They’re highly educated, have high standards of work ethics and are just great people overall. I’m definitely biased as a person from xUSSR country who is also 1/4 Ukrainian myself, but I’m really glad to see more Ukrainians in Europe.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s true, and they’re not wrong, nuclear Yugoslavia would be scary. Unfortunately I don’t think there’s an alternative, Putin rang a bell that can’t be un-rung.

  • rusticus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is and always has been a proxy war and a siege meant to exhaust Russian resources slowly and without rapidly escalating to more destructive methods.

      • StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I don’t think it started as a proxy war. Russia just decided to be stupid, but at this point it may very well be a proxy war in fact.

        It’s to pretty much everyone’s benefit (except Ukraine’s) for this to drag out for a nice long time. The more manpower and material Russia and their allies burns up in this stupidity, the longer the rest of Europe can breath freely. It gives them time to rebuild the armies that they have allowed to atrophy. There’s probably more to it and it’s callus as fuck, but that’s the math I see.

        • leviathan3k@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It is very much to Ukraine’s benefit to drag out this war if the alternative is Russian subjucation.

          If on the other hand the alternative you are seeking is flooding Ukraine with Western-provided weapons to the point that they annihilate the invaders and win quickly… yeah, that would be better for Ukraine than a drawn-out war.

      • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s a kind of mix of a proxy war. Russia is involved itself but Ukraine is used as a proxy by the west I guess?

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        People forgot quickly how hesitant the European countries was, and still is, to send equipment to Ukraine. Germany didn’t send anything but helmets for a long while. They also cancelled North Stream, leading to increased inflation and lessened economic competitive viability. If anything, the proxy war is exhausting both Russian and European economies, with the US and China ready to scoop up the scraps in preparation for their intensifying trade war.

        • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Why would they? Much of Eastern Europe expects the US to step in for defense, and use that fact to justify lowering expenditure on their own military.

          Sweden has that shit figured out though

          Don’t fuck with the Swedish

          • Urist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            The European countries bordering Russia, i.e. the Baltics, Nordics and Eastern Europe, contribute a far bigger percentage of their GDP to aid Ukraine than the others (if you ignore the new policies of Slovakia and Hungary). The US and UK gives/sells the most weapons, but Ukraine is pretty much bankrolled by the EU/EEA.

            The point is that the EU has sustained big economic losses from cutting ties with Russia, leading to movement of industry and production away from Europe and over to the other biggest economies.

            • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Yeah, it’s a difficult situation. I haven’t looked at the recent numbers regarding European countries contributions and their own militarization, I’m sure they’ve drastically increased since the war started

              • Urist@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Yes. Germany and many other European countries had little to none political support for investing in their militaries. Now they do, and it is going to be a problem later on. Capitalists want return on their investments, after all.

                The EU is very much on the top of the global neocolonial food chain, but they were mostly (looking at you France) not doing like super a lot (looking at you UK and US) of “interventions” to secure their interests all over the world.*

                * Most Western powers are part of NATO, which is its own can of worms. Still, Russia invading Ukraine has made support for NATO much more popular (see Sweden and Finland as case studies), and now the bloc is more consolidated than ever. The timing could not be worse with respect to the overtly fascist leaders gaining traction in the very same countries.

    • retrospectology@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Unfortunately this is a big part of why the first big summer counter-offensive by Ukraine stalled; NATO delayed aid by just enough that it guarunteed the war would drag out.

      Personally I think it’s about money for the industrial military complex. If the war had ended quickly while Ukraine had men, momentum and the initiative it would mean less money for industrialists.

      Even US generals like Patreaus were predicting the delay by the Biden admin on F-16s etc. would lead to a massively protracted conflict.

      It makes one ashamed that when our country finally does have a righteous cause for our massive military complex our leaders are still playing grab ass trying to make a buck while Ukrainians are fighting to exist. It’s one of Biden’s (and NATOs) biggest failures.

      • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        The insane amount of power that US military industrial complex has over our country and therefore the world is completely fucked.

        Eisenhower was right.

    • Gsus4@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Siege of whom? Normally, a siege ends when the sieger goes home. If russia wants to stop bleeding, go home.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Ukraine is currently under siege. That’s who is being sieged. The proxy war is because no one in the West wants a direct conflict between two nuclear powers. Russia is being bled by a thousand cuts here. They’ve lost over 70% of their stockpiles, probably more like 80-90% at this point, so far and every day that Putler continues his war, it adds more years of Russia ceasing to be a global power at any level.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I feel like for a number of the allies, their main goal has been to drain Russia of resources, even if it costs the lives of Ukrainians.

    • whereisk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m assuming the West’s analysis is that there’s no better political reality inside Russia in sight, even with Putin gone, so they’re better off just declawing the bear. Which to a large degree has already happened…

      Meanwhile the upside is that the collective West gets to try tactics and weapons for modern warfare (drones, ai, analysis) and get ready for the next fight. They also gained a fight-ready, trained ally in Ukraine and a sharper focus in Europe of what’s at stake and everything that that involves (eg energy and supply chain independence).

      The downside is obviously the deaths of Ukrainians in the front line, but I don’t know how many of them could be prevented without NATO getting properly involved.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think it’s more down to the fact that regime change initiated from the outside doesn’t go well. And if the west tries to take out Putin directly there’s a very high likelihood of it resulting in a nuclear war.

        The sanctions the west has in place are designed to nudge some powerful people within Russia to take out Putin. Problem is Putin has been around long enough that he’s been able to make it extremely difficult for someone to make a coup happen.

        Meanwhile the upside is that the collective West gets to try tactics and weapons for modern warfare (drones, ai, analysis) and get ready for the next fight.

        Russia also gets this experience. And we can get this kind of information from more traditional sources (ie. Israel) without Russia getting it.

        It would be better for the West if Putin was gone, but that needs to be done by Russian, and that’s easier said than done.

        I wouldn’t look for too much nefarious intent for things that can be explained by regime change being hard to pull off (and very risky when it’s a nuclear power) and war is not a simple thing.

    • deft@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Fuck.

      I understand the math but disgusted at the moral/ethics.

      Destruction would potentially cause post WWI vibe, could create a massive migration issue, cause further suffering or the development of horrible black market bullshit or anything in between, that power vacuum would be awful.

      Burn out would probably cause more revolutionary thinking and inspire a change in direction.

      Fuck. I honestly just want people to not fuckin die.

      • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

        As long as there are people willing to kill to oppose it, death is an unfortunate necessity for democracy’s preservation.

        • InternetPerson@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I wonder whether it’s possible to fight wars without – ideally – having casaulties at all.

          For example, sedating instead of killing. Afterwards prison camps or something like that. Admittedly, given the scale, it is financially and logistically a tremendous effort. But how much must a human life “be worth” in order to be spared?

          There are other obvious issues like civil unrest, if the other party keeps killing soldiers of one’s own military.

          Still, it’s better than to end lifes from my perspective. One side must be the bigger one.

          We spend so much effort and resources into specialising how to kill each other. But we don’t use that resources for finding alternative ways.

          If there are people who really want to kill each other, throw them together and leave the rest alone.

    • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      This seems to be the sad realpolitik truth. It explains how some of the aid has been given.

      Enough to keep grinding down the Kremlin’s war machine, not enough to actually take the Kremlin out of the fight.

      In a more utilitarian analysis, this might be the best for the greatest number of people. From an empathetic human perspective… it’s pretty fucking dark to see young Ukrainian men dying for this. Still better than living under the Kremlin’s boot.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      The goal is to provide enough aid to Ukraine to defeat the invading army without providing so much aid that Ukraine becomes an existential threat to Russia. There being an existential threat to a nuclear power can have some bad outcomes. So it’s a balancing act for the West. This is what Zelensky is alluding to with “to win in such a way that Russia does not lose.”

      And of course there’s a lot of shenanigans involving Russian assets in the west doing everything they can to sabotage aid efforts. That’s a significant factor in all of this that shouldn’t be ignored. Providing military aid to Urkaine is a no-brainer for geopolitical interests, but no-brain Russian shills are doing their best to block it.

      A long drawn out war of attrition isn’t actually in the best interests for the West. Russia gains experience, improves their weaponry and has ample opportunities to test that technology in the battlefield. They’ve been updating the battlefield doctrine to include ways to effectively use new technologies like drones. This isn’t something the West wants.

      Best outcome for the West is Ukraine drives out the Russian Military, and there’s a peace agreement that resolves all disputed territory which would pave the way for Ukraine to join NATO. The longer the war drags on, the longer it will be before Ukraine is part of NATO.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I know that Russia has threatened the use of nukes, but I find it hard to believe they’d actually follow through. Seems like a red line that would activate more direct action from lots of other countries against Russia. Then again, red lines have been made pretty flexible in the past, including recently.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Seems like a red line that would activate more direct action from lots of other countries against Russia.

          Yeah they don’t want direct action from lots of other countries because that would be an existential threat to them. But if Ukraine is an existential threat, why would a few more stop them from using everything they have in a desperate attempt to save themselves?

          A cornered rat is going to fight with everything it’s got when it’s about to be stomped on. The fear of a couple more people coming over to also stomp on it doesn’t change anything for the rat when it knows it’s already going to be stomped dead.

  • xenoclast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    That’s a nice way of calling people helping you cowards for doing it half hearted cuz they’re also afraid of your opponent. I think the message was sent.

    He MUST know how much influence Russia has in the halls of power and media of his allies as well.

    Ukraine fights a war on MANY fronts. Not all of them with bullets.

    • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      A large part of this war is centered on propaganda and information warfare- something Russia excels at

  • Gsus4@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Some of us are more afraid that they will win and get ideas that they can test article 5 in the Baltics/Poland and survive.

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s really a matter of Ukraine hanging on for as long as it takes for the price of oil and gas to collapse again. That’s the only thing that can get Russia to stop.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      They’re pretty confident that Ukraine could win the war given enough aid. The problem is Russia might not respond to that in a very positive manner.

      Dictators do not like to be told no.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        There’s also concern about how much aid they can politically muster, long term. Really, that and an eventual shortage of Ukrainian troops are the main concerns.

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    The west is legit afraid of Russia’s collapse because once again someone will have to bail Russia out and it’ll either be another 1988 mess or a new toy for China.

    What will happen to Russia once it’s fully in “war economy” and loses the war?

    • diplodocus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      The west is legit afraid of Russia’s collapse because once again someone will have to bail Russia out

      Yeah… that’s not what happened at all. What happened was the Western capitalist neocolonial plundering of the post-Soviet states through neoliberal shock therapy. And that’s why the US especially hates Putin: he kicked the plunderers out of Russia, interrupting their plundering.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Make an agreement to make the “disputed areas” independent of both russia and ukraine. Nobody wins. Enforce it with a pact that would draw in Nato but forbids them from joining Nato.

      • Rinox@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Call It like it is, Nazis can’t be trusted, and Putin is a Nazi

      • Lad@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        We all know that’s not going to happen. It’s time to do something about it.

        • baru@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          We all know that’s not going to happen.

          Russia will not leave on its own no.

          It’s time to do something about it.

          The first commenter repeated Russian bs about giving land. This while I’m the past Russia already took land, then greatly expanded and were attacking all of Ukraine.

          So wondering if you’re trying to repeat Russian bs or intend that Ukraine should get enough to get rid of Russia.