cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4664250

Finland's Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen opposes imposing neutrality on Ukraine

Valtonen questions Russia's trustworthiness in adhering to agreements

Forcing Ukraine to accept terms could undermine international system, Valtonen says

all 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

True and "fuck-you-Putin"-Pilled

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 32 points 1 day ago

Well OK, the Russians have broken every peace accord for the past few hundred years. But surely this time it will be different.

~ European "centrist" politicians

[–] Rin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

Well. I'm hoping the negotiations will turn sour and trump sends a shit load of equipment to ukraine.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

Damn true.

I don't know who thinks anyone will believe in a russian commitment.

[–] ladicius@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Whole of Europe has just discovered that you need to heavily invest in your armies and be part of a strong military alliance. And now the already partly occupied nation on ruzzis southern border shall feel safe without any allies?

Nah, buddies, piss off with that dumb idea. As an European I'd say: Make Ukraine stronger and help them achieve peace in their country at their terms.

[–] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Neutrality could work if we give Ukraine nuclear weapons and the ability to make more. That's the only thing other than a military alliance that'll reliably keep Russia out of the country.

I get the feeling that nuclear proliferation would not be seen as a desirable solution, though.

[–] magikmw@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

Accelerationist's platform: nuke in every home by 2030.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

They have everything. Plutonium, high tech manufacturers, ballistic missile tech. Sure they won't be doomsday level mirvs.

[–] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Good point. It's more of an "allowing them to build nukes" thing than a "teach them to build nukes" one – although the existing nuclear-armed nations could certainly accelerate the heck out of a Ukrainian nuclear program if they wanted.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

They could but in this case Ukraine is in the same predicament as Iran. The moment they make the dash for the bomb and anyone finds out before they have proper deterrence.. the only course of action for the opposition would be to either conventionally or nuclear Armageddon .. if they deem you having the bomb unacceptable. So there is that.

And as far as I know, Russian nuclear doctrine will require them to use nukes in this instance, as they are unable to do it conventionally, and it absolutely meets the criteria of threatening the existence of the Russian state.

In the case of Iran, this is the reason the US deployed the B2 spirit last month to bomb the houthis.. it was to remind everyone (especially Iran) of the capability the US has to either fly these B2 with deep penetrators (like they did against the houthis).. or if need be nuclear armed bombs.

[–] petrescatraian@libranet.de 5 points 2 days ago

@Cephalotrocity I think Finland and Sweeden should become some of the NATO leaders should the US withdraw to any extent