Shitty headline. That is ONLY if Russia gets to keep the annexed territories:
However, if ending the war would include Russia returning the territories that it has occupied and annexed throughout the conflict, only a third (34 percent) of respondents said they would support that decision.
LOL if the question is like that (“would you stop the war as a winner keeping all the lands and cease the sanctions”) then what the other 30% of people is thinking?
“Keep fighting because I enjoy watching it on the news?”
I would wager 100% of people surveyed would not want to go to jail for giving the wrong answer too.
Jail or the front lines.
So why did 34% respond otherwise?
Because they wanted to be or are extremely patriotic and want to win the war.
Keep going until all of Ukraine is annexed?
I think it’s clear to everyone that that is not going to happen.
To those of us with access to media that isn’t pure Russian propaganda, anyway. I suspect Russians without VPN access, (which I believe they recently outlawed,) have a very distorted view of the state of the world.
The fact that the frontline hasn’t significantly moved for over a year, aside from Kherson, should be obvious even from Russian propaganda. (Btw, this also shows that something major needs to happen if Ukraine is to get its territory back)
I really wish Ukrainian allies had given them jets and long-range missiles sooner. Were I in their shoes, I’d give Ukraine the capability of damaging Russian infrastructure and fuck up the supply lines all the way to their source if need be. Make it clear to the average Russian that going with the plan is more dangerous for them than resisting their autocrat. Time is of the essence, every second of delay can be measured in lives.
I don’t think the war will end until Putin dies. Whether that be next week or in 20 years.
There’s no way for Putin to retreat and save face. The world can’t afford to allow Russia to win. It will be a horrible stalemate of slaughter until Putin dies and can be blamed by both sides, to be able to negotiate a way out.
I don’t think that scenario has such an optimistic outlook in store. The people in the best position to inherit the seats of power in the Russian state are Putin’s closest clique, who are, for the most part, ultranationalists, who would not only see their newfound power deligitimazed if they immediately signed peace, but would also be acting against their own ideology. Even if there are powerful people in Russia who would prefer to transition towards a different kind of country, they don’t have a clear route to reach power.
I’m worried about Putin getting old and still in power in charge of the warfare.
lol I knew I saw the exact opposite headline somewhere. “Majority of russians dont want an end to ukraine war if needed to release territories” or something like that
Stop up voting Newsweek. They are not a reputable publication.
Without being condescending, can you give sauce? And for reference, what you consider reputable publications?
Newsweek isn’t terrible (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek), but sources like reuters or associated press are usually more reliable.
Seems reasonable. I’ve tried improvethenews.org, which is an AI attempt at balanced reporting. But I’ve found it to put too much equal representation of the extreme right viewpoints, which are not on planet earth so I have to filter/ignore all the pro Trump gibberish.
The fact check link posted by the other user is good.
Newsweek tends to take some news fact, often not even fact but a possible outcome of some developing story, and write a full opinion piece on a tangent.
We get a lot of Salon articles here doing the same thing.
As far as reputable, I would say apnews, Reuters, politico, CNN, BBC off the top of my head.
I know CNN will be contested. They have an annoying amount of opinion in their stories, but I do find that they clearly separate what’s objective fact and what’s editorial opinion.
Those are what I use. I’ve tried improvethenews.org, which is based upon AI trying to give balanced articles, but when one side of the political spectrum is so extreme it’s not “balanced” to have equal representation so I have to filter/ignore the pro Trump BS.
I’m kinda guessing they’ve never wanted that war to happen in the first place, they probably simply can’t express that without being arrested or something.
Those who support the war are probably brainwashed by propaganda.
There are actually Russians who I’ve heard say things like “Crimea is ours anyway,” and “Ukraine is supposed to be a part of Russia.” And I’m talking about Russian emigres in America who are not looking over their shoulders.
It’s not everyone. Mostly blowhard assholes but they do exist. The Russian people aren’t all sitting there thinking the right things but keeping their lips sealed.
The second sentence of this article is stating that only 30% of Russians want to end the war if they have to give back annexed regions of Ukraine.
Yes but there’s a lot of speculation in this thread that they are all just saying what they feel they have to because the KGB is watching. I’m sure that’s true for some but for others the sentiment is genuine.
Every country has a lot of idiotic nationalists, especially those which have an glorified, imperialist past. What matters is how much suffering are they willing to impose upon themselves to satisfy the demands of their collective narcissism, and Russians who live abroad aren’t going to be the ones suffering it the most.
And those who’ve left the motherland are probably not the most nationalist, so there you go.
You would think that but it isn’t always so clear. My college had a sizable chunk, if not a majority, of foreign Chinese students and they were extremely patriotic/nationalist.
But to be fair maybe those who never left China are even more patriotic, I wouldn’t know.
Oh
Removed by mod
If Ukraine stops fighting, they lose their country. If Russia stops fighting, the war ends.
deleted by creator
Even before the annexation, crimea was mostly pro-russian. If anything there should be another referendum, but this time with guarantees.
Edit: I know the right to self-determination is controversial, you may not like what others decide for themselves, that’s your business; but please don’t bother if you just want to talk nonsense, misrepresent or putting words in my mouth. Thanks.
deleted by creator
Lol, a Russian guarantee? Are those two words supposed to mean something real just because they’re shoved together in the same sentence?
For example, are you referring to a guarantee like the 1994 Budapest Memorandum where newly independent Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange for promises of protection from the US, France, and Russia? Like that guarantee?
Yeah, no. Russian guarantees pretty much all work out the same way.
“Guarantees” LOL like what? Super pinky swear?
deleted by creator
However, if ending the war would include Russia returning the territories that it has occupied and annexed throughout the conflict, only a third (34 percent) of respondents said they would support that decision.
Russia has maintained that any peace deal must include “the entry of four [Ukrainian] regions into Russia,” something that Kyiv is unlikely to budge on.
Lmao why does it sounds so familiar
Hard to compare these conflicts. Ultimately Russia is aggressively trying to annex land and gain sea access through conventional warfare, Israel is trying to keep their people safe from guerilla attacks, having defeated their aggressor in conventional warfare multiple times long ago. Ukraine is the underdog in their conflict and it appears they are winning, Palestine is the underdog in their conflict and they have no viable path to military victory.
Nah, there’s similarity between Russia and Israel. Israel want to annex Gaza, West Bank, and Jerusalem, but ultimately withdraw from Gaza due to both demographic issue and constant Hamas attack. But now they seems to reignite the plan, seeing that over the year they keep expanding their West Bank illegal settlement, and the current plan for Gaza’s ethnic cleansing. One could even argue that “keeping people safe” is just a farce, considering having peace within the region is the best way to keep their people safe, yet the current administration is moving away from that, causing the tension to raise within the region.
The similarity extend to the country, down to the citizen’s opinion. The aggressor(Russia/Israel) want to keep the land and won’t give back, the underdog(Ukraine/Palestine Authority, not Hamas) want their land back and won’t compromise.
Too bad the similarity end there, as Palestine Authority does not have much authority, as they’re not and will not recognized as a state by Israel, even though they demand Palestine to recognize their state.
One could even argue that “keeping people safe” is just a farce, considering having peace within the region is the best way to keep their people safe, yet the current administration is moving away from that, causing the tension to raise within the region.
Clearly Hamas was responsible for breaking the peace in this most recent outbreak of hostilities. Not punching back is a losing move in terms of game theory.
Gaza’s ethnic cleansing.
That is a popular take, but it seems obvious to me that this is about creating distance from belligerent forces in Gaza who are unwilling to pacify themselves rather than ethnic cleansing. 20% of Israel’s citizens are Arab/Palestinian with full rights, and they are not being driven away. Gaza, the West Bank, and Arab citizens of Israel are the same ethnic group but are each treated very differently due to the different threat levels they pose. It’s clear to me this is about something else other than ethnicity.
Many people aren’t aware, but when the shoe was on the other foot, when Arab league Palestinian ally, Jordan, annexed the west bank and Jerusalem, they were not shy about ethnic cleansing. They immediately set about driving out every Jew, destroying their structures with mortar fire, and denying them Jordanian citizenship.
“For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter. Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews’ return here impossible”
“The operations of calculated destruction were set in motion. I Knew that the Jewish Quarter was densely populated with Jewish populations who caused their fighters a good deal of interference and difficulty. I embarked, therefore on shelling of the quarter with mortars creating harassment and destruction. Only for days after our entry into Jerusalem, the Jewish Quarter become their graveyard. Death and destruction reigned over it. As the down of May 28th was about to break, the Jewish Quarter emerged in convulsive cloud-a cloud of death and agony” -Abdullah el Tell, a commander of the Arab Legion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Jerusalem#Islamization_of_Jerusalem_under_Jordanian_ruleToday there are no Jewish citizens of Jordan.
The aggressor(Russia/Israel)
Israel may be on the advantageous side of asymmetrical warfare, but they are not the aggressors, at least not this time. They didn’t start this conflict but I suspect they will end it, (as this is a long conflict there’s plenty of examples of cassis belli for both sides, but if you look at the initial causes of this conflict, the earliest massacres in mandate Palestine, declaration of war on Israel over the 1948 UN borders, or the most recent flare-ups of violence, they were caused by Palestinian aggression.)
the underdog(Ukraine/Palestine Authority, not Hamas) want their land back and won’t compromise.
Ukraine has a viable path to military victory. Palestine does not, (Hamas, Fatah, PA, take your pick…) Ukraine is well aware of their realpolitik situation and has been handling itself very well accordingly. It makes sense for them to be uncompromising regarding annexed territories. Palestinian forces are ignoring their realpolitik situation, poking a bear they cannot defeat for the last century. Being uncompromising has led to their situation today and will likely be their downfall.
Palestine Authority does not have much authority, as they’re not and will not recognized as a state by Israel, even though they demand Palestine to recognize their state.
They don’t have a lot of leverage but I suspect this is something they could include in a peace treaty if they are willing to pacify themselves and make viable concessions.
Clearly Hamas was responsible for breaking the peace in this most recent outbreak of hostilities. Not punching back is a losing move in terms of game theory.
Not relevant to my point.
That is a popular take, but it seems obvious to me that this is about creating distance from belligerent forces in Gaza who are unwilling to pacify themselves rather than ethnic cleansing.
It can be both. It is both.
20% of Israel’s citizens are Arab/Palestinian with full rights, and they are not being driven away.
“Maximum jew, minimum Palestine.”
Gaza, the West Bank, and Arab citizens of Israel are the same ethnic group but are each treated very differently due to the different threat levels they pose. It’s clear to me this is about something else other than ethnicity.
Yes, a nationalism one.
Many people aren’t aware, but when the shoe was on the other foot, when Arab league Palestinian ally, Jordan, annexed the west bank and Jerusalem, they were not shy about ethnic cleansing. They immediately set about driving out every Jew, destroying their structures with mortar fire, and denying them Jordanian citizenship.
So you’re not denying the current situation in Gaza is ethnic cleansing. Interesting.
Israel may be on the advantageous side of asymmetrical warfare, but they are not the aggressors, at least not this time.
Aggressor as in annexing the land of other nation and oppress the citizen within. Who started the war isn’t relevant in my comparison, but if they aren’t oppressed then this war wouldn’t start either.
Palestinian forces are ignoring their realpolitik situation, poking a bear they cannot defeat for the last century. Being uncompromising has led to their situation today and will likely be their downfall.
This is true. Hamas is banking on the empathy the world has on the normal Palestinian and also the support of Iran, but that has backfired on them, causing a genocide.
They don’t have a lot of leverage but I suspect this is something they could include in a peace treaty if they are willing to pacify themselves and make viable concessions.
Pacify. Heh. Hamas did not rule West Bank. Palestine Authority cannot arrest illegal settler for the violent and murder they cause. Palestine Authority cannot object on the building of illegal settlement. Palestine Authority need to have permission from Israel to travel anywhere outside, even to Jordan. Palestinian from West Bank cannot fight back the illegal settler else they would be shot. Palestinian cannot protest else they would be shot.
What sort of pacifying they need to do next? Worship the path every Israeli walk?
Aggressor as in annexing the land of other nation and oppress the citizen within. Who started the war isn’t relevant in my comparison, but if they aren’t oppressed then this war wouldn’t start either.
I’d argue it is relevant, as the annexations were a direct consequence of said wars, especially the 1948 Palestine war. Causality matters.
So you’re not denying the current situation in Gaza is ethnic cleansing. Interesting.
I don’t think it is, as Israel is not ethnically homogeneous (a requirement for ethnic cleansing under the UN definition,) but if I’m understanding your response correctly you believe that as long as one, “Maxim[izes] jew, minim[izes] Palestine,” it still qualifies.
What sort of pacifying they need to do next? Worship the path every Israeli walk?
Pacify means stop fighting, become peaceful. If that happens I suspect more authority, autonomy, and possibly even Palestinian statehood may become possible one day. It is not possible while they remain belligerent. They cannot win through violence, because Israel is capable of way more of it. They will have to negotiate for it.
I’d argue it is relevant, as the annexations were a direct consequence of said wars, especially the 1948 Palestine war. Causality matters.
Sure.
Jewish immigration to Palestine
Zionism formed in Europe as the national movement of the Jewish people. It sought to reestablish Jewish statehood in the ancient homeland. The first wave of Zionist immigration, dubbed the First Aliyah, lasted from 1882 to 1903. Some 30,000 Jews, mostly from the Russian Empire, reached Ottoman Palestine. They were driven both by the Zionist idea and by the wave of antisemitism in Europe, especially in the Russian Empire, which came in the form of brutal pogroms. They wanted to establish Jewish agricultural settlements and a Jewish majority in the land that would allow them to gain statehood. They mostly settled in the sparsely populated lowlands, which were swampy and subjected to Bedouin robbers.
So Zionist migrate to Palestine and trying to establish their own state there…in 1882.
The Arab inhabitants of Ottoman Palestine who saw the Zionist Jews settle next to them had no national affiliation. They saw themselves as subjects of the Ottoman Empire, members of the Islamic community and as Arabs, geographically, linguistically and culturally. Their strongest affiliation was their clan, family, village or tribe. There was no Arab or Palestinian Arab nationalist movement.
Arabian sees them as friend because culturally they are similar.
In the first two decades of Zionist immigration, most of the opposition came from the wealthy landowners and noblemen who feared they would have to fight the Jews for the land in the future.
The fear at that time only from the land owner, as they doesn’t want someone to simply claim their land for their own(and look what we have today). So yes, like you said, causality matters, Zionism is the cause of the conflict. Much like how Christopher Columbus gain the trust of the native in America when he set foot there and later enslave them, slowly drive them into almost extinction, Arabian accept them, in return they backstab the Arabian.
I don’t think it is, as Israel is not ethnically homogeneous (a requirement for ethnic cleansing under the UN definition,)
Definition As ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law, there is no precise definition of this concept or the exact acts to be qualified as ethnic cleansing. A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as “… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.”
So basically UN did not define it, but according to the report, this is, by definition, a result of ethnic cleansing. At this stage, Israel isn’t exactly there yet. But if they expel Gazan and replaced it with Jewish people, then this fulfill the requirement. However, the definition continued:
In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”
The Commission of Experts also stated that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others.
The one i highlight is applicable to what Israel did in both Gaza and West Bank for decades.
Pacify means stop fighting, become peaceful.
How much more peaceful do you want the West Bank to be to reach your definition of peaceful?
If that happens I suspect more authority, autonomy, and possibly even Palestinian statehood may become possible one day.
As i put it, the ship already sailed, the current political party and the leader stated repeatedly they doesn’t want a Palestine state to exists.
So Zionist migrate to Palestine and trying to establish their own state there…in 1882. … The fear at that time only from the land owner, as they doesn’t want someone to simply claim their land for their own(and look what we have today). … Zionism is the cause of the conflict.
Before the hostilities began Jews were legally buying land in Palestine, not annexing it. There’s nothing wrong with legally purchasing land with the eventual goal of statehood.
Much like how Christopher Columbus gain the trust of the native in America when he set foot there and later enslave them, slowly drive them into almost extinction, Arabian accept them, in return they backstab the Arabian.
Again, the earliest violent conflicts between these groups were instigated by Arabs, not Jews, (citations above.) They were not a threat and deserving of violence merely for immigrating there. This changed when violent hostilities broke out between these groups. If anyone got, “stabbed in the back,” it was the Jews who were living there peacefully at first and were repeatedly attacked by Arab Nationalists.
if they expel Gazan and replaced it with Jewish people, then this fulfill the requirement.
So if they drove Gazans out and let Bedouins or another Arab Islamic group live on that land, or left it empty, it wouldn’t be ethnic cleansing? Interesting, considering it’s the same act.
How much more peaceful do you want the West Bank to be to reach your definition of peaceful?
I suspect Israel would be willing to negotiate for long-term peace with the PA in the West Bank as soon as this war with Hamas is over, provided they can prevent rocket and guerilla attacks from within their borders and are willing to make adequate concessions.
Pretty important detail missing from the headline:
However, if ending the war would include Russia returning the territories that it has occupied and annexed throughout the conflict, only a third (34 percent) of respondents said they would support that decision.
That’s a pretty critical detail… The headline becomes incredibly misleading without it. It should read: “Overwhelming majority of Russians now want to win Ukraine war”
Too bad they have no say
In other news: large amount of Russians fall from stairs and windows this week.
I say we support ukraine until they raid Moscow and buttfuck putin with something sharp.
That’s not the goal and the Ukrainians aren’t going to waste their lives pushing to Moscow. They just want their country back, that’s been there intent since day 1.
Never claimed it was their plan, I was making a statement over how long I would support them and their struggle.
End how?
With all the territorial gains, if an article I’ve read here recently was right.
Well, they’re probably quite content with their territorial gains and are hopeful that they’ll just conveniently end the war now and keep said territories. That would explain the still relatively high number of supporters the Kremlin still enjoys while also a big chunk of the population wants an end to the war. I think there’s a big overlap between the two groups, which might explain my initial point.
However, if ending the war would include Russia returning the territories that it has occupied and annexed throughout the conflict, only a third (34 percent) of respondents said they would support that decision.
Further reading the article proves this sadly.
Their options are pack up and leave, or throw down their weapons and surrender.
The Kremlin: seen
Fuck russia.
deleted by creator
Yeah well the overwhelming majority of Russians has jack shit control over the war. All about Putin
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Most Russians now support ending President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine, according to a poll published by Russia’s Levada Center, an independent research organization based in Moscow.
Levada’s latest poll comes months into Ukraine’s slow-moving counteroffensive to reclaim the territories Russia has seized throughout the war, and as Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu on Monday floated the prospect of peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow.
The results are significant given that stringent laws passed in Russia in March 2022 made criticizing the Russian military and the war in Ukraine illegal.
An August poll by the Levada Center showed that just 38 percent of respondents “definitely” support the actions of Russia’s armed forces in Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said on multiple occasions that he will not comply with the Kremlin’s non-negotiable conditions for peace talks, including that Kyiv must accept the September 2022 annexation of four of its regions—Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia—following referendums called by Putin that were deemed illegal by the international community.
Zelensky has pushed a 10-step “peace formula,” which includes radiation and nuclear safety; food security; energy security; the release of all prisoners and deported persons; implementation of the U.N. Charter and restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the world order; withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities; restoration of justice; countering ecocide; preventing escalation; and finally, confirmation of the end of the war.
The original article contains 476 words, the summary contains 230 words. Saved 52%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Yeah… But the wrong question was asked… “Do you want to save your sons and pay the price of rebuilding Ukraine as it was before your aggression?”
