this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2023
137 points (100.0% liked)

World News

1036 readers
27 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression,” Blinken said in a speech in Finland, which recently became NATO’s newest member and shares a long border with Russia.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sxan@midwest.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'd love to see it, but that's just petty vengeance on my part, wanting to see a bully punished.

I don't know if a humiliated Russia is an ideal solution. The humiliation of Germany after WW I greatly contributed to the rise of Hitler, and we don't want to see a repeat of that.

An ideal solution IMHO would be regime change, a complete withdrawl to pre-2014 borders, and full blame placed on Putin and his staunchest cronies, allowing the general public and even his supporting public to save face. The story that he lied to and misled the public might alleviate some humiliation at the withdrawal. Something like how WW II was handled should be the model: defeat of the previous regime, strict laws banning the worst behaviors leading to Putin's dictatorship, curtailing corruption, and strong investment and rebuilding of Russian society by the victors. People tend to forget hurt egos more easily when they're prosperous.

Whipping the dog that bit you doesn't make a safer dog.

Edit: PS, it's easy for me to say this. I have no friends or family raped, tortured or murdered by Russians. I have had no children abducted into re-education camps. If it happened yo me, I'd want a blood bath, a murderous swath cut through Russia to the Kremlin. I understand and sympathize with Ukrainians who want this. I'm just saying that, unless you're commited to genocide, it's more likely to come back around in an endless cycle of vengeance.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Speaking of the Marshall Plan, it had considerable push back at the time. It took a Soviet backed coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948 for Americans to realize that leaving Europe starved and in tatters would push Europe into the arms of the Soviets. The Marshall Plan was a relatively cheap way to win battles before they ever occurred.

Russia will not, of course, be the same as post-WW2 Nazi Germany. The victors must be Russians, not outsiders. But Westerners should be willing to give freely, maybe with some basic stipulations around rule of law so Russia doesn't fall back into being a dictatorial kleptocracy that threatens its neighbors.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Russians being victors meaning Russians overthrowing their oppressor? Because a Russian victory in Ukraine, as unlikely as it would be, would lead only to more aggression and certainly no outside investment (except perhaps from China, which is facing its own problems).

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The "victors" would not be Russians defeating Ukrainians militarily, but instead reformists Russians changing Russia from the inside. The Russo-Ukraine war will of course be part of the backdrop. Even many military fanboys in Russia are realizing that the war has been incompetently run. With the right person diverting that anger into productive forms, positive change could be achieved. Then there might be a return of outside investment, though I would expect investors to be slow to begin with (once burned, twice shy). Change coming from the West will be viewed with too much suspicion. Only Russians can change Russia.