this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
187 points (97.9% liked)

World News

43960 readers
3783 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
 

Summary

Vladimir Putin responded to Ukraine’s US-backed ceasefire proposal by imposing strict conditions, including a halt to Kyiv’s military aid and mobilization, while continuing Russia’s own rearmament.

His calculated stance prolongs negotiations without outright rejecting Donald Trump’s initiative, which seeks to end the war while pressuring Ukraine.

Putin also demands Ukraine’s demilitarization, exclusion from NATO, and recognition of Russian territorial claims.

Trump, with limited leverage, may shift toward aligning with Putin’s terms. Meanwhile, Ukraine fears the ceasefire could allow Russia to regroup and intensify its offensive.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 55 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Take it from the former US Ambassador to Russia

Concessions

[–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago

… does Ukraine even get anything out of that? It doesn’t sound like Ukraine benefits in any way.

It’s like “here’s the deal: you just give me $1 million”

Holy greedy, yes I understand he's a dictator, but c'mon!

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 18 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

The answer to that is giving Ukraine more and more support, weapons and material until Putin changed his tune. Or you play the sniveling coward and start negotiating these earnestly. We all know what path Donnie boy will take.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 14 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

The answer is for Europe to collectively get involved and annihilate every Russian within Ukraine's borders. Set up permanent EU bases on the Russian border. Offer a massive ransom and immunity for anyone in Russia who neutralizes Putin and his oligarchy. The mafia state must be destroyed, and a message needs to be sent to the US that Europe will come down on them hard if they attempt to use force on any allies. Fascists are bullies, and only learn their lesson through violence.

Trump does not control the military yet. He can replace leadership but I'd be willing to bet a majority of lifers in leadership would turn against him if he tried to invade Canada or Greenland within the next few years. Better to trigger a civil war now than allow the fascists to consolidate power and fill the military with loyalists.

[–] cool@lemmings.world -5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Ukraine can't win without additional troops from other armies.

Saying "more aid" will affect that outcome is a propagandized lie just like when you people were saying Ukraine could retake Crimea.

Right now we're in the "sunk-cost" stage of our investment. We can keep sending Ukraine equipment to keep up the lie that they can win without additional troops. That will result in more money for the MIC, and more dead Ukrainians that would've otherwise surrendered.

The outcome will remain the same, because Ukraine cannot win without additional troops.

If you have a problem with this reality, then maybe you people should start arguing in favor of sending troops to Ukraine instead of just equipment. (you're not going to though, and this is part of why they don't get new troops and will lose the war as a result.)

[–] lepinkainen@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

And other countries can’t send actual troops because Putin will cry about NATO and threaten with WW3 and nukes

[–] cool@lemmings.world 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

But everyone is saying Russia won't stop at Ukraine, so NATO is going to have to fight them either way.

People also said Ukraine shouldn't mine their borders with Russia because it would be seen as escalation.

Maybe you people are... wrong? Just, maybe?