this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
39 points (77.5% liked)

World News

39347 readers
2758 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
quinten@lemmy.world
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
39
One-third of Ukrainians would give up land for peace – but it’s not as simple as that. (theconversation.com)
submitted 4 months ago by ModerateImprovement@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago (1 children)

the path Biden has set – policies that, so far, have only prevented Ukraine from losing without providing it with a path to military victory.

Hogwash.

Ukraine has a path to victory, the political collapse of Russia's top leadership or them finally running their expansive saved-up war chest and stockpiles of Soviet kit dry.

What is not a viable path to victory is some imaginary scenario where Ukraine accomplishes what Hitler and Napoleon could not, and manages to fully capitulate Russia through military might. That's woefully unrealistic and would face the nightmare of a land war in Asia, and likely Russian use of tactical nukes against enemy forces on their own land, as put forward in their own doctrine.

So, the grinding path is actually the only path, and there was never any possible Ukrainian victory scenario where this war would go for any less than several years. We are currently at two, that is not very many.

Not that Ukraine needs to pursue victory, if they wish to cede territory for peace, I understand and respect that. The decision should be theirs, though, and we should stand behind them until they make it of their own free will.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

A political collapse would be a lot more like likely if Russians had to worry about bombs falling on them.

Edit: I chose my words poorly. I'm talking about things like infrastructure. Russians might support the war less if they're sitting in the dark.

[–] sandbox@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

“Strategic bombing”, also known as the mass murder of innocent people, has been known to be ineffective for nearly a century.

[–] Pringles@lemm.ee -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Ehm, the Germans got bombed into oblivion. It was quite effective.

[–] sandbox@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Entire swathes of Europe were decimated by bombing. Look at Coventry, or London. Did that dissuade the fighting spirit of Britain? Not even a bit. If anything, it galvanised resolve. Strategic bombing just turns innocent people into enemies who have a reason to get revenge.

[–] Ropianos@feddit.org 4 points 4 months ago

Effective at what? Germany capitulated only once it was almost fully occupied (e.g. Berlin, Rhineland). The bombs might have helped by binding resources and demoralizing the population but that didn't affect the capitulation directly.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not calling for mass murder of civilians. More like taking out infrastructure.

[–] sandbox@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean, ultimately, innocent people would still die. I think focusing on military and government targets is the way to go, ideally

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Civilians die in war. That's very different from targeting civilians. Putin made that choice when he chose war. If you want Ukraine to avoid all civilian casualties, they're going to be stuck doing what they've been doing all along, fighting a war of attrition on their own territory.

[–] sandbox@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Sure, I get that, but if you start bombing civilian infrastructure, you just harm innocent civilians - in particular, the most vulnerable people - and you don’t really do anything to erode public support for the war. If anything it builds public support - it gives the people an enemy in you, rather than in their leaders.

I assure you that bombing Russian civilian infrastructure isn’t going to make the war go any faster. Providing equipment, training and personnel to the war effort and focusing on the military targets in the actual war zone is what would make the war end more quickly.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 4 months ago

Well, I'll take your word for it since you and other other saying similar things are getting all the votes. It's not someone I've paid that much attention to, seeing as how I'll never be in a position to influence decisions at that level of detail.

The main thing for me is I wish Ukraine were given free rein to fight back as they see fit. I trust them more than myself to make good strategic decisions.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Political collapse, no, not really. Strategic bombing doesn't tend to have that sort of effect, people get upset at the folks dropping the actual bombs. Economic, yes, though. They should be allowed to strike hydrocarbon and military production infrastructure.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago (2 children)

So two thirds of the country would not give up land for peace.

Also, the reason why so few would agree to what isn't that simple is because Russia would never respect whatever peace was agreed to.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I think the third that would capitulate are short-sighted fools. That tracks, since it seems like about a third of any population is like that.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

A third of the US would probably like to bring back Jim Crow laws.

[–] bigFab@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Please, read article before commenting strong opinions. Half of the country, not two thirds.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The above commenter's statement is edit technically true.

Half the country is not ready for land concessions. A third is ready for land concessions. The remainder does not have an opinion fitting those two groups neatly.

However, the statement "2/3 of the country..." Is true, as all people NOT in the 1/3 are NOT ready for land concessions.

Edit the 47-52% line represents the grey area not within the 1/3, edit and is entangled with NATO membership, which somewhat confounds the earlier 1/3 discussion.

[–] bigFab@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago

My point is to encourage ppl to read. Too many illiterates influencing this world out there.

[–] bigFab@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

I hate lazy journalists. 'Now Beijing’s position is now...' 'China advocates for ending the ceasefire...' !!! 🤯

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago

The Conversation Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

The Conversation is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

Bias: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: Australia
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-conversation/

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News

Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.

Footer

Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.

Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.