• 211@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      Notice that even the source has to admit that the hypothetical territory losses would be for “security guarantees and peace”. And since no ironclad security guarantees are in sight, the question is moot.

      IMHO they “should” take a deal like that too. Even after WW2 for Poland itself, and definitely Finland IMHO, that lost territory but weren’t directly absorbed into the SU, I’d imagine the SU meddling in the decades after was the even more painful part.

      It also isn’t necessarily the kind of “should” that implies loss of support otherwise, just that if I/they were in that situation, I/they’d take such a deal. I certainly think it should be up to the ukrainians themselves, and would continue to support them whichever choice they made, when it may come available.

      • onslaught545@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        They’ve already taken such a deal from the US to give up their nukes for security guarantees, and look where it got them. I wouldn’t trust Putin more than Trump to keep their word.

        • 211@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Yup. Hence why all the talk of ironclad security guarantees, though I don’t even know what they could be at this point to be trusted. NATO membership and bilateral agreements with US, UK, and France? But so long as no serious guarantees are on the table, the question remains moot.

    • bubblybubbles@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      If the Nazi imperialistic org known as “NATO” were simply disbanded the world would be a better place