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

    • DeadPand@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      More like money people don’t want their money fucked with anymore than it has been by this war

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      So much of the current internal domestic Russian zeitgeist is the idea of national strength compared to other nations. Pride comes with their strongman. If they are finally faced with the truth that neither Russia or its strongman are strong, it could lead to Russia/Russians trying to assert it in other ways to try to rationalize it. Or Russia could simply collapse from within orphaning hundreds of nuclear warheads leading to opportunists selling warheads to the highest bidders. The only thing worse than Russia having nuclear weapons is every two-bit terrorist or backwater dictator getting their hands on them.

      Keep in mind none of this in my mind means we stop supporting Ukraine economically and militarily. Russia made its bed. We can’t choose our actions based upon trying to save Russia from itself.

      • Beetlejuice001@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        I once mentioned how Billionaires will eventually get Nuclear Weapons and was ridiculed. Turns out it’ll happen sooner than I thought. Truly a carrot and stick situation.

    • breakfastmtn@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think that’s one of the meanings. If a Russian loss led to the sudden collapse of the Russian state or a radical retraction of the Russian economy, who knows what the consequences would be?

      I don’t think that’s a justification for not letting Russia lose, but it is a big bag of who-the-fuck-knows.

      • BigFig@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        Imo it’s the find out part of Russians fucking around. Don’t give a fuck what repercussions or hardships they face next, THEY started this shit

        • breakfastmtn@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          7 months ago

          The concern isn’t about the consequences faced by Russia, but the impact on the rest of the world. Like, if Russia were to collapse, I think most would agree that Egyptians don’t deserve to find out what suddenly not having $1.7 billion in wheat would mean, right? I don’t think anyone has any idea what that would mean for, say, Tajikistan and other post-Soviet states with economies closely tied to Russia. Collapse would be chaos and it wouldn’t stay confined within Russia’s borders.

          And, again, I don’t think that justifies preventing Russia from losing. There are worse concerns for Russia winning. And the idea that Russia neither winning nor losing could be a sustainable final state is probably a fantasy.

    • 8ender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I was thinking the collapse of the state, and China picking up some of what’s left.

    • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t think so, not necessarily. It means that the existence of russia stops some countries from doing some things, if you remove russia, those countries will not be counterbalanced anymore

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Probably a broader umbrella of bad stuff. If Putin goes, there’s no real successors, so it’s kind of anyone’s game to be the next dictator, and chaos potential is very high. This is actually by design, as a form of coup-proofing.

      It might not be MAD, and in fact probably won’t be directly, but massive proliferation? Sure, lots of people would trade a lot of guns for a nuke. One of the splinter states invading NATO directly? Could also happen. Russian oil and gas going off the market really fast, and putting Europe in a tough spot? Almost certain, at least to some degree. And then at the end of it, who knows what the map of Eurasia looks like.

      When they say unpredictable, they mean unpredictable, and they have great reason to be wary of unpredictability.