339
"Critical support" Compromise?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
339 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
12326 readers
1341 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not taking the tankie position but how does Ukraine/Europe/NATO etc. expect to end this war? Do they really think Ukraine will retake the Donbas and Crimea? To me the compromise seems pragmatic and has nothing to do with supporting Russia.
EDIT: Ok just to be clear. There are three positions.
I'm sorry that none of these are great options but dismissing #2 comes off as incredibly callous and naive.
Your grandparent if it was genetic:
"I wouldn't take the German position, but how does England/France/Poland expect to end this war? Do they really think France will retake the Elsass and Lotharingia? To me, compromise seems pragmatic and has nothing to do with supporting Germany"
They win the same way any free people has ever resisted domination by tyrants. By fighting.
I find the comparisons between Putin's Russia and Hitler's Germany to be profoundly idiotic. If I need to lay out why then there's no point even trying to argue because there's a basic lack of understanding that needs to be overcome.
You realize saying "I'm right and you're wrong, and if you don't know why I'm not going to tell you," comes across as extremely childish, right?
Are you making the argument that Russia isn't engaging in ethnic cleansing? Or that they don't have the same alliances as Germany did? What precisely are you separating between the 2 actions taken by powerful aggressors?
"Powerful aggressors" is the issue. If you think Germany in 1939 is the same thing as Russia in 2023 then I have a bridge to sell you. You realize Germany defeated continental Europe and then invaded half of Russia, right? Putin's military couldn't hold Kharkiv. Idealogical analogies are great until they run into material reality.
No hes right lmao. There is no comparison to be made.
Why? Where does the analogy fall apart, specifically? Is there no comparison because they are literally just different countries and the year is different?
Does putin have concentration camps set up where Ukrainians are used as slave labor and then liquidated and then sent up a chimney?
Or was he responding to a buildup of NATO forces along the border and Ukraine killing ethnic Russians within Ukraine?
The allies in WW2 didn't fight because Hitler was putting people in concentration camps.
The allies in WWII were extremely war weary from WWI and waited until they were forced to fight. The "allies" now want to use Ukraine to the last man to try and degrade Russia as much as they can, because war makes them money.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm making fun of your willful inability to understand an analogy
I think a much better comparison to Hitler using a contemporary figure is Nenatyahu 🤷
Well, Netanyahu has never invaded the Sudetenland, so I'm going to pretend to not understand your analogy at all since it's not exactly the same?
Were we not referencing the genocide, lol?
Is that what you find? Thank you for your wise judgment, professor "not taking the tankie position, but," no comparisons to be made, one country is a nationalist dictatorship hellbent on revanchist conquest and ethnic cleansing, the other is Germany.
The motives or the ideology are not the point. There are dozens of these and none of them are Nazi Germany. Is Argentina in 1982 Germany? Is Indonesia in 1975 Germany? Why not? Same reason as Ukraine: material circumstances dictate what a country is able to do. If you can't hold Kharkiv you're not in the same category as the Wehrmacht. I don't care what a fascist you are, you're not going to be able to conquer Europe and Ursula von der Leyen is not Neville Chamberlain. The Hitler comparison is literally the laziest analogy you can make.
They tried option 2 in 2014. It got them invaded again. They've decided to try something different now, since they know option 2 doesn't work.
They didn't concede Crimea. They failed to get a security guarantee from NATO or the EU and now that would involve declaring war, so we are instead content to watch hundreds of thousands of them die. You need peace before you can get a security guarantee, and the only way to get peace is through some negotiation. Barring the aforementioned spontaneous collapse of Russia.
Which they had in 2015 and couldn't get one
Which they did in 2014 and still got invaded in 2022
Yes they get a security guarantee this time, obviously. It's like arguing with an LLM
And how do you propose that they guarantee that before negotiations? Or do you propose that they negotiate for peace, let Putin end a second war with a profit, and then hope that things go better than the last time they did the exact same thing?
There's other options you're ignoring:
.4: The Russian economy collapses due to the combination of sanctions, "kinetic sanctions" reducing foreign income, and the mono-focus on war-goods delivery causing large segments of the economy to be unable to produce or produce cost efficiently
.5: The various oligopolists and other power bases decide they've had enough of Putin bleeding them and want the good times back, Putain gets Gadaffi'ed
.6: Internal uprisings of some of the downtrodden colonies - prob not Chechnya again, but Far East, and Circassia etc, particularly given a lot of maimed and mentally impacted soldiers returning there
Now I don't think the last one is very likely for a bunch of reasons, but the point is your options are way too narrow.
These all come off as wishful thinking and reminiscent of 2023 punditry. The Russian economy is fine because it's a petrostate supported by BRICS. Even if we entertain them the time horizon is totally undefined. So we wait around while another million people die?
LOL. I think you're the one stuck in 2023 not me
Fact: Russia's refined petroleum production is the lowest it has been in 2 decades since it troughed post USSR breakdown
[(url)https://www.kyivpost.com/post/80189
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/06/11/russian-oil-output-falls-for-sixth-straight-month-as-ukrainian-drone-attacks-hit-infrastructure-a92987
Fact: Russia's economy is struggling, although it still a distance from collapse, that's the current trajectory
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/220766/economics/russias-economic-problems-2026/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/natashalindstaedt/2026/07/13/russias-economy-is-slowly-sinking/ https://www.economist.com/topics/russias-economy
Ok great so just more drones and another million or so casualties and they'll be ready to surrender
You're not a fan of reading comprehension, are you ? That's just a double down on your "there are only 3 options" post and ignores the two posts you responded to.
Maybe there will be another million russian casualties before Putain gives up on his zerg rush and pulls out, or one of the scenarios happens that prompts a Russian withdrawal, but if Ukraine surrenders there will easily be that many Ukrainians slaughtered (we have Bucha as precedent before you scoff), so there's no incentive for Ukraine to do anything other than fight until overwhelmed or a win. That's the POINT of the cartoon.
I'm not ignoring the points about Russian weakness, I'm dismissing them. We've been hearing the "Russia is on the verge of collapse" narrative for years. I think it's wishful thinking and refusing to engage the thought of negotiating because of a vacuous Hitler narrative is just prolonging the conflict. When something doesn't work for years one looks for alternatives.
Here's an article about how economic stagnation doesn't necessarily mean military defeat with authoritarian regimes.
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/why-economic-pain-wont-stop-russias-war
I'm not trying to disprove anything, just showing that counterpoints are available. Ultimately we have no idea about when Putin will decide to stop, or whether he will at all, and we don't know how the economic implications will affect Russia's warfighting ability because we can't apply a democratic model to it. All we have is years of liberal optimists being wrong and a million dead.
The point of the cartoon is to show that negotiating is bad and I think that makes no sense unless you're a capitalist arms manufacturer or an imperial revanchist.
If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth ?
Russian propaganda have being doing variants of this dance for years with the intent to weaken the western resolve to stick to sanctions. It has invariably been Russian aligned sources that have pushed the "russia is about to collapse" as a strawman to then knock down.
The point of sanctions is to weaken Russian capability. It's never been a position of the West that it will cause Russian economic collapse, although that is in fact now the direction of travel that has become apparent lately, it's not something that is a goal (in fact the US went to a lot of trouble to hamstring Ukraine to try and prevent it in the Biden years).
Whether Russia will collapse economically is simply one of the many options you chose to ignore to further your narrative. It could, plausibly, happen, although it is not certain, but nor are any of the options you tabled.
What we do have very very clear evidence on, is that Russia (post USSR) breaks every treaty it makes with Ukraine, so the option of a negotiated peace has to be off the table as it is a near certainty they will break it (please don't give me the battered spouse "this time it will be different" response).
I'm not going off of all of these hypotheticals. The evidence I'm pointing to is a thousand casualties per day. People in the West can sanction and wishcast about oligarchs all they want and meanwhile these lives are being erased. Imagine living in Ukraine and hearing this. "Just keep dying, and eventually something might happen." It's absurd.
Do you have any solution that produces a result in a quantifiable amount of time?
I never suggested that Russia was trustworthy, just that temporary peace is better than whatever this is.
I'm going to set aside the fact that it is impossible to guarantee a timeframe on anything, and assume you meant "realistic suggestions to end the war".
But, oh you won't like my suggestions one little bit and we have proof from the thread to date you won't actually engage with them, you'll just dismiss them.
So, the minimal effort response is - Russia has already been ground to a halt - they've not been advancing in any significant way for at least 2months. What makes you think Russia can win from here ? They can't get fuel into Crimea where they've been staging attacks from, they can't get supplies into their troops on the frontline in many areas, and on the home front there's plenty of footage of farmers going broke for various reasons and not being able to produce. Famines are always great for home-front morale so that contributes to one of the options you ignored. Troops without supplies and ammo can't fight and will have to withdraw that contributes to another.
TL;DR more money and supplies to Ukraine, much more than we are currently supplying. They're doing a great job of making it difficult for Russia to continue.
Nope despite your hostility I'm really only here because I'm trying to find answers. So am I correct that your hypothesis is that Russia will stop fighting if we just continue with aid, sanctions, and air war? If so, I'm asking how long this will take because of the casualty rate that everyone here seems to ignore.
The peoblem with doscussing #2 is that it is predicated on this fantastical idea that Russia will just, what?, stop all actions abide by this decision and never push further? Everyone suddenly lives in peace? Lives stop being lost over it? Its a nice thought, but I cannot comprehend it being true. Perhaps it delays some more bloodshed for a short time, but thats rrally the best case scenario I see.
I disagree that there are no other options.
At the end of a war either one or botb sides need to sell their people that they won.
Example:
Ukraine gets their territory back and joins the eu, including an European army. -> they can sell this as a win
Ukraine promises to not jointhe nato for atleast 20 years Russions in dombass and crimera get special rights, like living their without a Ukrainian passport, more rights for these local governments (like catalonia in Spain) -> Russia can sell this as a win
My point is officially giving dombass and crimera to russia is not a compromise as it was their goal before the war but there are compromises that both sides can save face with. In qhose favor these compromises fall depends on who would be more willing to continue the war if their demands are not met
Why would Putin give up the territory he took? I don't think there are realistic compromises that don't involve Ukrainian territorial concessions.
War costs money. This war will go on as long as money is poured into it.
Once the West stops supporting Ukraine it will fall. Once Russia runs out of money and China drops them they will fall.
Politically they can't stop it.
Ukraine wants back their stolen territory and Russia doesn't want to lose a war. There's no compromise.
The same with the war in Israel.
This war goes on as long as money is poured into it. Israel is supported by the West and Gaza is supported by almost everyone including the West because of misused aid money.
Ok and how is this helpful? You're basically saying that permanent war is inevitable and trying to attain even a temporary peace is pointless. You're surrendering to the capitalist ruling class and their military industrial complex.
No I am all in for peace.
However the best option of all war mongering parties just stopping and everybody shaking hands is sadly not realistic.
What I am telling you that the solution is most likely solved by a financial situation and not really on the direct conflict politics.
And how exactly does a financial situation solve this? Everybody is making money right now.