Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/9202260

Vladimir Putin will spark a third world war if the Russian president is allowed to declare victory in Ukraine, according to the boss of the country’s biggest private employer.

Yuriy Ryzhenkov, chief executive of Metinvest, which ran the sprawling Azovstal steelworks that became the site of a relentless Russian assault at the start of the 2022 invasion, warned of the consequences of a Kremlin victory.

“I don’t believe that if Ukraine fails, Putin will stop,” he said in an interview ahead of the two year anniversary of the war in Ukraine. “The Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia are the next targets.”

  • Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Crimea was in the USSR, no? So it’s been 30 years since the area which is now Russia had control of Crimea. I have no idea how long ago is too long, but probably a human lifespan maximum is reasonable. Part of the calculus I’m using is literally just “can the country win a war for the area?”. Which is why Alaska is not debatable. Like, Russia really wants Crimea, they will most likely win the war eventually, why not let them have it if it means ending the war? If they were to then try to take more land, that’s when we put our foot down. Sure it’s a bad precedent, but who says we have to follow precedent? It’s really just America that cares about Russia not getting stronger, the rest of the world should want all of Russia, China, and America to be roughly equal.

    If Alaska is a great starting point for invasion, then we definitely should not let them take Alaska.

    • nuscheltier@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Crimea was in the USSR, no?

      Yes, you’re right. I thought Ukraine was kinda independent since they had a seat in the UN, but I was wrong. So it’s been roughly 30 years, yes.

      Like, Russia really wants Crimea, they will most likely win the war eventually, why not let them have it if it means ending the war?

      And that is exactly what Gian and I are refering to. In the 1930s it was “If Germany gets Austria, it would be peace in our time.” “If Germany gets Sudetenland, it would be peace in our time.” But Hitler was never satisfied.

      If they were to then try to take more land, that’s when we put our foot down.

      And here lies the problem. De facto they already had Crimea. There is no way around that they occupied it and no one lifted a finger. Now they want the Donbass Region with all the iron and coal. Luhansk and Donetsk.
      So “If Russia gets Crimea, there will be peace in our time.” doesn’t ring quite so good now. “If Russia gets Donbass, there will be peace in our time” is the exact same mistake that was made 90 years ago. And those mistakes cost many lives.

      It’s really just America that cares about Russia not getting stronger, the rest of the world should want all of Russia, China, and America to be roughly equal.

      No. The European Union also cares about Russia getting stronger. Well I for myself don’t want an authoritarian governmant to just invade neighbours because they feel like it. The European Union tried to integrate Russia by trading with them, but we see that that didn’t quite get the result that was hoped for.
      I do get, what you’re trying to say that China, Russia and the USA should be roughly equal, but the EU is missing and to be honest, two Superpowers being authoritarian is more frightening than anything else.

      • Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I don’t really see a distinction between Crimea and Donbass/Donetsk. To me it’s the same placeAnd supposedly the people of those regions voted to leave Ukraine, right? So that essentially makes Russia equivalent to France in the American revolution.

        It’d be great if no one ever invaded anywhere else, but it won’t happen. Best we can do is resolve it as peacefully as possible. I see democracy as the same as simulated war: one side has 20,000 men, one has 15,000, let’s just assume the bigger army will win and skip the war altogether. Russia has a bigger army, we should just call the war and be done with it. There’s no reason global politics have to adhere to precedent.

        • nuscheltier@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          And supposedly the people of those regions voted to leave Ukraine, right?

          Supposedly. One side says it were fair elections the other doubts that. So, who is right? The side that had soldiers at the voting booths, oppresses the people there, deports and kills the people living there, or the one to which the regions belong that wants to live in peace?

          Best we can do is resolve it as peacefully as possible. I see democracy as the same as simulated war: one side has 20,000 men, one has 15,000, let’s just assume the bigger army will win and skip the war altogether.

          1. The war shouldn’t have broken out. Why? Budapest Memorandum. Russia was supposed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. So Russia doesn’t need to adhere to treaties because they have more soldiers?
          2. If we’re talking about active soldiers, how about North Korea annexes just about everyone? They have about 7 million soldiers (soldiers, reservists and paramilitaries). So they can just say that everyone should bow to their will? So they can just say “We take the United States”? [1]

          Since I made these points over and over again that the votings for independence are not fair and equal, that Russia is violating international law, and they are attacking an independent country, I will stop here since we’re going round in circles.

          • Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I mean, I believe the side not allied with a country known to rig elections and openly spread propaganda about their victims. Recently the US president claimed to have personally seen videos of Hamas beheading babies, which never existed. Russia spreads propaganda internally too, but historically only about internal affairs, not shit like claiming Venezuelas election was rigged in order to install a puppet.

            Obviously using larger army as a metric doesn’t make sense in the long term. It only works in spots where you’ve already committed to a war.

            Saying it wasn’t a legit election because Russian soldiers were there is stupid. That can just as easily be used as proof that it was legitimate. I’m sure Britain looked like the peaceful side during the US revolution as well, does that make France the bad guys in that war?

            • gian @lemmy.grys.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Recently the US president claimed to have personally seen videos of Hamas beheading babies, which never existed.

              Given that other people had seen them and people are now starting to speak about the horrors they witnessed (or have been subjected to), I would doubt it. But still, not the point.

              Saying it wasn’t a legit election because Russian soldiers were there is stupid. That can just as easily be used as proof that it was legitimate.

              Sure. Already asked: then what do you think is a rigged election ?

              • Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                A rigged election is when you disregard the outcome of the votes. Such as venezualas in 2018 (attempted). All agreed that the votes said Maduro won, but America claimed it was rigged, and thus their puppet actually won. Or if the things trump supporters claimed were actually true, that’s a rigged election.

                Nobody has ever disseminated the videos Biden claimed to have seen, or verified any of the IDFs claims. Other people claimed to have seen them, and people have claimed anything they can think of about Hamas. None of it has been verified. Believing anything the IDF says at this point is essentially malicious incompetence, nobody who has done research on the topic would actually believe the BS being spewed. Biden is either an idiot for believing it, or lying. I lean towards idiot in this case.

                • gian @lemmy.grys.it
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  A rigged election is when you disregard the outcome of the votes. Such as venezualas in 2018 (attempted). All agreed that the votes said Maduro won, but America claimed it was rigged, and thus their puppet actually won. Or if the things trump supporters claimed were actually true, that’s a rigged election.

                  Ok, that is one way that you can have a rigged election. Don’t you really think this is the only way, right ? Or are the North Korea ones not rigged ?

                  Nobody has ever disseminated the videos Biden claimed to have seen, or verified any of the IDFs claims. Other people claimed to have seen them, and people have claimed anything they can think of about Hamas. None of it has been verified. Believing anything the IDF says at this point is essentially malicious incompetence, nobody who has done research on the topic would actually believe the BS being spewed. Biden is either an idiot for believing it, or lying. I lean towards idiot in this case.

                  Aside the fact that we have multiple journalists around the world that had seen the video.
                  Aside the fact that we have phone record of “eroic hamas warriors” telling his mom that “I killed 10 jews” and was played on the news. Aside the fact that we have photos of jews girl on the back of a van brutally beated (if not already dead) that were paraded, photos that were shown on the news.
                  Aside the fact that we have what the hostages said to have seen (or have suffered) what happened.

                  But hey, it is ok. After all if Hamas said that they don’t kill innocent people, who we are to doubt it ?

                  One last point.
                  I get what kind of person you are, it is useless to have a discussion with you. Let’s end here and now.

                  • Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    I’m sure that one or two, or hell, maybe 1-200, of the 1000-1500 people Hamas has killed, were not IDF. However, literally every Israeli over the age of 15 is IDF, so that is itself pretty suspect. And maybe 1 or 2 were done so as horrifically as the IDF claims. All groups have horrible people in them in small numbers. But that has never been shown to be true. You’re simply taking people’s word for it. Basically nothing the IDF has ever said has been independently verified, while most of what Hamas has claimed has been. So yes, I believe the group that doesn’t lie, and not the one who does.

                    I don’t know how NK rigs elections. How do we even know for sure they do? I mean I obviously don’t believe American media about it. Does Chinese or Russian media say they do? Or Al Jazeera? But assuming they do actually do it, what was your point about rigged elections again?

        • gian @lemmy.grys.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I don’t really see a distinction between Crimea and Donbass/Donetsk. To me it’s the same placeAnd supposedly the people of those regions voted to leave Ukraine, right? So that essentially makes Russia equivalent to France in the American revolution.

          Man, study some of your country history, you will do yourself a favor.

          What you are referring to is completely wrong. France intervened as US ally after the what will become US declared war against England. To compare to the actual situation, it would be that US are France, Ukraine is the rebel colonies and Russia is England.

          It’d be great if no one ever invaded anywhere else, but it won’t happen. Best we can do is resolve it as peacefully as possible.

          Which is the exact mentality that provoked WWII.
          Sometimes I think that what US needs is to have a real war fought on their home land, only this way you will understand how wrong is what you are saying. Not that I hope so, but it would be a learning lesson.

          I see democracy as the same as simulated war: one side has 20,000 men, one has 15,000, let’s just assume the bigger army will win and skip the war altogether. Russia has a bigger army, we should just call the war and be done with it. There’s no reason global politics have to adhere to precedent.

          It don’t work this way, sorry. And your assumption is completely wrong. Or are you trying to say that if North Korea declare war against US then US will lose ?

          • Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            North Korea doesn’t have a larger army than USA.

            The regions at war have declared independence from Ukraine. It’s the same situation as America was in, except that France wasn’t trying to make the colonies become french. But they certainly expected a high level of control over them.

            Comparing it to WW2 is insane, it’s not remotely the same situation.

            • gian @lemmy.grys.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              North Korea doesn’t have a larger army than USA.

              Wikipedia begs to differ. According to the list from the “International Institute for Strategic Studies” North Korea has a total (active, reserve and paramilitary) of a little less than 7.8 million people. US a little more than 2 million.

              But ok, let’s consider only the active military, so let’s switch North Korea with China.
              China have bigger army, so they can take the US, since in the case of a war, it is supposed that China will win.

              The regions at war have declared independence from Ukraine. It’s the same situation as America was in, except that France wasn’t trying to make the colonies become french. But they certainly expected a high level of control over them.

              Comparing it to WW2 is insane, it’s not remotely the same situation

              Aside it seems a lot like the years before WWII…

    • gian @lemmy.grys.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      If Alaska is a great starting point for invasion, then we definitely should not let them take Alaska.

      If the Black Sea is a great starting point for invasione, then we definitely should not let them take the Black Sea.

      • Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s not though. It’s strategic importance is purely defensive. It is useful for influencing places that border the black sea. It’s completely irrelevant to an attack on anywhere else

        • gian @lemmy.grys.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Do you realize that “influencing places that border the Black Sea” means “influencing 3 NATO members and Ukraine” which basically are the 90% of the coast of the Black Sea. Invading one of the only two non NATO members facing the Black Sear does not seems a particular intellingent way to try to influence the others…