• Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 days ago

    “One of the scenarios is… to give up territory. It’s not fair. But for the peace, temporary peace, maybe it can be a solution, temporary,” he said […]

    […] his country may have to give up territory, albeit temporarily.

    What does this mean? How do you give up territory “temporarily,” especially as “the 53-year-old […] stressed that the Ukrainian people would ‘never accept occupation’ by Russia”?

    Mr. Klitschko should rather listen to Svitlana, the teacher cited at the end of the article: “Those who think that Putin will stop if he is given Crimea, they don’t know who the Russians are, he is not going to stop.”

    • khannie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      How do you give up territory “temporarily,”

      A long time ago Ireland did it. We’re still living with that partition today and as part of the good Friday agreement we gave up our constitutional claim on the North. There was a referendum on it (all constitutional changes here require one) and I, along with the vast majority of the Republic, voted in favour with some caveats which would allow reunification.

      If they concede now that land is gone though. Gone. There will be no caveats given to Ukraine.

    • macniel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Appeasement never worked. When Putin wants those territories he will have to pay with his own blood!

    • Lumidaub@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Well, if they straight up GIVE the territory to Russia, it isn’t occupation, of course, it’s ownership. So it’s obviously the vastly superior option of the two only options left to Ukraine. /S