this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
362 points (98.1% liked)

World News

41603 readers
5365 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

President Trump’s rancorous threat to abandon Ukraine is stoking support for a long-debated proposal to use billions of dollars in frozen Russian assets to buy weapons for Ukraine and finance its reconstruction.

The money — roughly $300 billion owned by Russia’s central bank — was frozen by the United States, the European Union, Britain and others after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. The aim was to punish President Vladimir V. Putin for his unprovoked attack and to cut off funds he could use to wage war.

As the war grinds on into its fourth year, a growing number of officials in Europe and elsewhere have been calling for the money to be released to directly compensate Ukraine.

MBFC
Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] meliante@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Do you know what happened last time Ukraine had an agreement with Russia and USA?

Why would they make the same mistake?

Why are you pressing for that as it is it a valid option? Why are you ignoring what Russia and the USA did not so long ago? Are you of the opinion that trump can bring peace to Ukraine quickly?

Why are you so opposed to giving free money to Ukraine?

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Well yes, I am aware that Russia has violated numerous treaties. But I'm not arguing for the treaties to be the same, not even for a peace treaty to happen now. Nor am I saying we shouldn't give some portion of that money to Ukraine.

Are you of the opinion that trump can bring peace to Ukraine quickly?

I feel like I'm being pretty clear that I don't think anything close to this, no? But your questions seem to be on the basis that I do.

The point I am actually making is that at some point in the future there will be some form of peace negotiations to end the war. That's not coming from a Trump-esque "peace now because I say so" angle, but from a "every conflict ends in some form of settlement eventually" angle. The fact that this money would act as significant leverage in that scenario means that this isn't just magic free money, but a tradeoff to be made.

That doesn't mean it's the wrong tradeoff, necessarily, just that to actually decide whether or not that's the case, you do need to consider that it is one.

[–] meliante@lemm.ee 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

My point is that history shows it's not really wise to negotiate, or go for treaties or agreements with Russia.

Whilst strategically it would be good to make the war stop it would only be a temporary and remedial solution not really solving the root cause of the problem.

So why do it?

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 hour ago

Well because every war ends with a peace treaty. Ignoring that fact now and making it harder to do so in the future just because a peace treaty isn't viable now.

All I'm arguing for is making decisions while aware of all the factors? I don't understand what you're disagreeing with, really