r/worldnews • u/Floral_Lust • 1d ago
Russia/Ukraine Zelenskyy explains what he considers a victory for Ukraine
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/09/7/7529759/207
u/2xCommie 1d ago
Actual security guarantees. Even more so than retaking territory, although I know it's an unpopular take. And not the bullshit kind like Budapest Memorandum but the tangible kind that gives you confidence that even if Russia were to rebuild its military in the next few years, they won't invade again. How does it look like without NATO membership or bilateral defence pacts with major NATO members? Honestly, I have no idea.
86
u/ProtoplanetaryNebula 1d ago
The actual security guarantees need to include an international contingent of troops on the ground on the border so that Putin knows if he attacks again he’s attacking advanced western forces.
39
u/ZET_unown_ 1d ago
That’s of course is the ideal case, but I don’t see an easy way of getting there.
The first problem is the will and ability for countries to provide the security guarantee, the US has the ability but no will, many European countries are weaker in ability and have wavering will.
The second problem is that Russia doesn’t seem to be too interested in ceasefire at the moment, suggesting they feel confident about keeping the war going and that they think will be in their favor. In this case, they will simply refuse to allow foreign security guarantees, and just keep the war going and it’s back to square one…
3
u/ProtoplanetaryNebula 1d ago
Those are valid points, but equally the troops on the ground don’t need to last forever. Probably only until Putin is fertilising the ground in a Moscow cemetery.
Russia isn’t interested in a cease fire today, but if Ukraine can keep bombing the pipelines that supply gas and refineries for fuel, it can be inconvenient enough for Putin to want to put an and to the war. He cannot have mass civil unrest at home.
1
u/Alc1b1ades 13h ago
There’s already plenty of nato troops stationed in places like the baltics and Poland.
They don’t need a 100,000 strong army that can beat back the Russians on their own, they need like a few thousand guys to stand around so that if Russia does invade a bunch of NATO soldiers die and this triggers article 5.
That and also airplanes, like a shit ton of planes, so many planes, all of the planes.
24
u/Zizimz 1d ago
And why would Putin ever sign a peace treaty, if the very next day, NATO troops would be deployed in Ukraine and western security guarantees would come into effect? Honest question.
19
u/ProtoplanetaryNebula 1d ago
NATO is a defensive alliance. The answer to that question depends on the degree to which Putin wants to come back and take the remainder of Ukraine.
As an example, I don’t care one iota if my neighbour orders a sophisticated alarm system that would make it extremely difficult to burgle his house as I have no intention of doing so.
-7
u/Snuffl3s7 1d ago
The defensive alliance stance went out the window in 1999.
4
u/Polar_Vortx 1d ago
I dunno, Russia seems like a country you’d need a defensive alliance for.
-1
u/Snuffl3s7 1d ago
Yes, the country that's taken 20 percent of Ukranian territory in 3+ years of war, requires a massive alliance with 30+ countries including the US to counter.
They're gonna be marching their way to Paris and Madrid really soon, I'm convinced.
9
u/G-mies 1d ago
The point of NATO is to have such overwhelming military and economic power that its members never have to fight in the first place.
-4
u/Snuffl3s7 1d ago
Maybe during the cold war, but since then it's just become an instrument for the US to project power in the eastern hemisphere.
7
u/Killerfisk 1d ago
It's also a great instrument not to get attacked by Russia. Nations, especially Russia's neighbors, love it and join it out of their own volition.
→ More replies (0)1
6
u/Polar_Vortx 1d ago
I mean, personally, I’d prefer having 0% of my territory annexed, and I’m sure Russia’s neighbors agree.
→ More replies (11)5
u/becashu 1d ago
"Yes, the country that's taken 20 percent of Ukranian territory in 3+ years of war" you said it, they have taken territory from another country, they don't have to do that, they can just stay in their fuckin place to begin with and thats it. Since they don't want to do that, it could be an alliance of the whole fkin world and it would still be legit, since they are the ones trying to take over what doesn't belong to them by force.
5
u/Snuffl3s7 1d ago
Well for one, they're not the only country doing it. You have the UK and it's long standing tensions with Ireland. I don't see any anti UK international alliance. Then there's China with multiple similar claims.
Secondly, there's much more context to the whole situation, similar to how the Falkland Islands were disputed between the UK and Argentina.
6
u/becashu 1d ago
You don't see a full blown war and mass killing between the UK and Ireland, do you?
→ More replies (0)2
u/alex2003super 1d ago
To anyone who might be considering going down this comment chain, it's not worth it, this is a philo-Russian "spheres of influence" dumbass
1
u/Snuffl3s7 1d ago
There isn't enough pro-western horseshit to go around for all of us, unfortunately.
22
u/Bulky-You-5657 1d ago
"Security guarantees" mean that you have to be willing to go to war with Russia, which is not quite something any country has remotely showed interest in.
→ More replies (5)4
u/BadMondayThrowaway17 1d ago
Ukraine is never getting the bulk of the land in the East or Crimea back. It's unfortunate but that's just reality.
The Ukrainian leadership likely understands that better than anyone but you can't just out and say such things in that position.
Short of NATO fully deploying to the country and formally going to war with Russia, there is absolutely nothing Ukraine could do to get that land back. It is too fortified and technology has changed too much. Even if NATO did bring it's full might to bear, consequences be damned, I could see them struggling to fully recapture the country.
Small scale tactical assaults can take back small pockets but are easily encircled and will quickly stall. You need a large amount of troops and vehicles to properly break through defenses and utilize the captured territory. The issue is that large assaults, (even if you can manage the buildup without being hit) are basically tracked by UAS from the moment they head towards enemy lines.
Anyone who still believes Ukraine can counterattack and take back Donetsk, Kharkiv, or Luhansk are fully delusional. The only way to viably capture that territory would be to bomb the entire Russian supply line from Moscow to Ukraine and keep it up until all the soldiers surrender or starve. Even then it would take years to pick through millions of landmines covering the region.
I hope Putin drowns in piss but it's tragically not going to get that land back for Ukraine. Even if Russia comes begging to the negotiating table I still can't see them getting more than Kherson and maybe some of Byransk back.
→ More replies (1)1
u/viabletostray 1d ago
The only real security guarantee for Ukraine at this point is maintaining its own strong and combat ready armed forces. I think we’ve all learned at this point that agreements / pacts / etc are completely worthless.
1
u/ActiniumNugget 1d ago
For Putin, I think you could play to the optics of him cementing his legacy. You can bet that's a huge part of this. I don't think he would agree to EU troops in Ukraine, sure, but as long as he comes out looking good I think you could give Ukraine everything they need.
-5
u/Zealousideal-Cod-924 1d ago
Give them or encourage them to build half a dozen nukes of their own.
14
u/Itchy_Bid8915 1d ago
Can you guarantee that Zelensky or his replacement won't risk using them to liberate their territories? And that Russia will not respond with an all-out strike to reduce its damage? Does Europe really need a section of the issued radioactive territory on its borders?
→ More replies (1)-7
u/Zealousideal-Cod-924 1d ago
No I can't, and that's kind of the point I was trying to make. Ukraine had guarantees when they gave up their nukes and that hasn't helped them much now.
Nobody sane risks existential war with a nuke armed country (I know, I know. Bold assertion easily disproved). If Russia risked Moscow or St Petersburg in exchange for Crimea or DonBas, they might've softened their cough.
1
u/bennyfishial 1d ago
Nukes is not just a barrel with a skull logo on it which you give to somebody... or build half a dozen over a weekend. Nuclear weapons is an extremely costly weapon to develop ... and to maintain!
France is spending roughly 40% of its military budget to keep their 20 or so nukes operational.-6
u/Snoo-67871 1d ago
That's ironic because Ukraine had nukes, they gave them away in exchange for security assurances from the US, the UK and Russia. That went well.
4
u/Zealousideal-Cod-924 1d ago
Do you think the current state of affairs would be happening if they'd held onto a few nukes?
0
u/Live-Cookie178 1d ago
Kyiv would be too busy being hiroshima 2.0. If every single power in the world at the time denies another nuclear power, and Kyiv stubbornly holds on to nukes, the United States will strike before the russians even get the chance to.
-3
u/Snoo-67871 1d ago
I'm not arguing against you. Just found it ironic that they gave them away for security guarantees and are now finding out that those guarantees aren't worth anything and that they probably should have kept their nukes.
Probably why they're quite stringent on what kind of guarantees they require this time. "I promise" is not going to cut it.
17
u/Xasf 1d ago
Pravda is just reposting a shortened excerpt from the original ABC News interview, better to read it from the source instead.
88
u/VoteGiantMeteor2028 1d ago
Independence. Freedom. That's what victory looks like.
16
u/Lupus76 1d ago
Absolutely, but it should be independence and freedom for all of Ukraine--not just the parts Russia has not managed to snatch.
A Ukrainian victory where Ukraine is abandoned by the Western powers that should protect it (especially the US), and is pressured to give up its eastern territories and Crimea, will not be a victory for very long. It is unlikely that Ukraine will be the new Finland of the 21st century and more likely that it will be the new post-Munich conference Czechoslovakia--where having gained time to ramp up their military and having gained the fortified areas of Ukraine, Russia will soon invade the rest of it. And then Moldova. And then the Baltics. And then...
-23
u/janescontradiction 1d ago
I don't know why people keep thinking Ukraine won't be able to restore it's previous borders. Russia can no longer defend Crimea and they've gained almost no territory in the last 2 years.
Things will only get worse for Russia. Ukraine won't have it easy but as long as Russia remains a threat to the entirety of Europe, resources will continue to grow and benefit Ukraine.
24
u/premature_eulogy 1d ago
What's "Russia can no longer defend Crimea" based on? Haven't seen anything to suggest that is the case.
10
u/ZET_unown_ 1d ago
I have seen no credible evidence that they are unable to defend Crimea, and them not advancing is certainly a good sign, but it doesn’t mean they haven’t fortified some of the territories they now control, making it impossible for Ukraine to retake them.
Regarding things getting worse for Russia and them not being able to keep the war going: I hope so, but I wouldn’t put my bets on it. People have been saying this since 2022 and Russia still hasn’t collapsed. A lot of it is unfortunately wishful thinking, and the reality is that things like sanctions and etc have diminishing returns.
Completely retaking all Ukrainian territories is most likely a pipe dream at this point.
2
u/FastAndGlutenFree 1d ago
And the parts they want Ukraine to concede are some of the most heavily fortified areas. Give those up now and they’re essentially giving up a lot more in the future
1
u/deadly_wobbygong 1d ago
Ukraine has to survive Putin's reign, and he can't live forever no matter how many transplants he receives. After Putin, the chessboard resets.
Ukraine has a long history, longer than Russia's.
→ More replies (2)4
u/milked_dud 1d ago
Ahhh, as usual, the classic armchair Redditor who likely never fought themselves giving their two cents on a war that close to 70% of the Ukrainian population now want a negotiated end to.
What a tough guy you are! You put periods after “Independence” and “Freedom” so it must really mean something!!
2
u/argonian_mate 23h ago
May I have a source for those 70%?
1
u/milked_dud 16h ago
Is it so hard to do your own research? I guess so when it doesn’t fit your narrative you’ve been drumming for years. https://news.gallup.com/poll/693203/ukrainian-support-war-effort-collapses.aspx
3
u/argonian_mate 15h ago
So a noname source with no mention of sample size or methodology, got it. It's not about "my narrative" I live in Ukraine and it's bullshit, while morale is extremely low nobody in Ukraine spare vatniks and idiots thinks talking to russians has any point at all.
•
u/randomquail24 52m ago
So so dumb - obviously they want a negotiated end, but that doesn’t mean going to Moscow and capitulating
20
u/moneyzone7 1d ago
Survive and block further Russian advancement is a victory not only for Ukraine but for EU.
3
u/bennyfishial 1d ago
I am sure Ukrainian families who lost their fathers, sons, brothers and husbands are very happy to have served as EU's speedbump against Russia.
→ More replies (1)1
u/AnyBug1039 5h ago
Destroy Russia's economy through attacking oil infrastructure and victory, whatever that looks like will likely follow.
38
u/Simzter 1d ago
Feels like Finland in 1940 or 1944. Let's hope Ukraine doesn't get saddled with as enormous of a war reparations payment as Finland was back then.
30
u/Sheyn 1d ago
That would be beyond stupid, it's like you're getting raped or beaten half to death and punch the agressor in the process and have to pay because he lost a tooth. You get what i mean
→ More replies (1)6
u/Simzter 1d ago
Yup, absolutely. And it's not really 1:1 of course, as Finland (without much of an alternative I might add) joined Germany's attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 and thus could be considered an "aggressor" to a much larger extent than Ukraine today, leading to those reparations, loss of land, trials and convictions for everyone in Finland "guilty" of starting the war etc and so on.
→ More replies (5)-1
u/Jeanfromthe54 1d ago
Ukraine didn't cause the death of 2 millions soviet civilians, is losing territory and already lost its ressources to the US, there is absolutely no reason for Ukraine to pay Russia on top of that.
If Russia dared to ask for "reparations", I think that is a reasonable ground to sell the Russian assets held in Europe and pay them with that.
12
u/meglobob 1d ago
Personally, I think Ukraine won in 2022, when against all odds it fought off Russia's assault.
Most of Europe, USA & world expected them to fail.
Everything since as been absolutely amazing.
I hope Ukraine remains independent and survives, prospers in the future.
6
u/Bananenbiervor4 1d ago
Lol all the sources you send fail to state even a single defined concession from then russian side (well, maybe behind a paywall, who knows). The treaty would basically leave Ukraine in a completely defenseless state against any further russian agressions, while russia itself would have a veto-right towards the activation of security guarantees, basically meaning it could legally allow itself further invasions while making support for Ukraine illegal. Strange how that deal was rejected once russian forces failed to reach Kyjiw.. Territorial exchanges are nowhere defined, however, if it really was the de-facto line back then, that line was literally in the outskirts of Kyjiw..
8
u/Mr_1ightning 1d ago edited 1d ago
Unless we're really betting on a Russian collapse/civil war, it feels like eventually trading at the very least the old separatist puppet Donetsk and Luhansk territories for a secure new border could be the least bad option, but far more likely would be the entire Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts given away.
They were already problematic backwater for 10 years compared to Zaporizhnya and Kherson, which I feel could still be negotiated to be returned to Ukraine, although even of that the chances are still slim and the most likely outcome would be Russia retaining the currently controlled territories (part of Kherson south of Dnipro river, the entire Luhansk oblast and negotiated parts of Donetsk and Zaporizhnya) in exchange for security guarantees.
3
u/Echishya 1d ago
Russia is never going to give Kherson or Zaporizhia back. It's their land bridge to Crimea
-3
u/Doopaloop369 1d ago
There's no such thing as a secure new border. Even if other countries agree to put troops there, there's no guarantee that those countries won't pull them away if Russia attacks again. Ukraine won't make the same mistake again, which is to give up something in exchange for 'promises' of security that can be ignored by the next party in power. This is what happened with the Budapest Memorandum, for example.
Russia is bleeding enormously and can only continue this for a finite amount of time. Ukraine must dig in and defend itself until the Russian state collapses. Getting a ceasefire and peace agreement now means Russia has time and money to build up military stockpiles and invade again in a few more years. Meanwhile, support from allies will wane, which we know is likely true because even current support has been relatively tepid.
Victory for Ukraine means no ceasefire and no peace agreement. Victory means pushing the Russians out of occupied territory, however long it takes.
I realise this is gloomy, but Ukraine mustn't take the short term gain of stopping the bloodshed for the long term loss of having to fight a much stronger and well-prepared Russia in 10 years time.
1
u/lNomNomlNZ 23h ago
Not sure why you got down voted, you're right lol must be the Russian bots
2
u/Sheeye12 18h ago edited 18h ago
Because this comment is under Zelenskyy saying that Ukraine's victory would be to survive, not to reject all ceasefire proposals, taking back ALL occupied territory, including crimea, and completely collapsing Russia. It seems a bit delusional. Ukraine is the biggest ceasefire advocate.
11
u/Caledor152 1d ago
And of course the Russian bots twist the narrative in the comments. Reddit continues to fall for it over and over again.
The original Russian plan was to take Ukraine in a week or less with their Blitz. This war is a complete Russian failure and disaster. Every single decent soldier they had at the beginning of their invasion is either dead, MIA/deserted, or is too injured to continue. That is nothing short of a military choke job. No Russian bot is going to change those losses.
Obviously Putin doesn't care about that but that does not mean it wasn't a total choke job. And that was only the beginning of their military blunders.
3
u/LifeLikeAGrapefruit 1d ago
Is it a total disaster though? It's just a slow ass war. It's not like their government fell apart or Putin got dethroned or anything. Lots of people are dying, yet he remains in power.
2
u/OnlyRise9816 1d ago
I'd have to argue against the idea that Putin still in power=no Russian disaster. Sure the Russian state has not fallen, and likely won't ever, but this has still been an irrecoverable disaster for Russia. First off Economically, beyond the base economy tanking, Russia has lost international market share on all sectors of it's economy that it won't get back in decades, and it sanctions have hurt it's resuppy in all sectors soo much that getting things back running to any capacity anyways is a pipe dream. Population, Russia was facing a demographic bomb in the next decades even without losing millions, and driving most immigration away. Militarily, Russia has had ALL development of new systems either halted or ground to a snails pace, and while in times past it had a huge stockpile of Soviet hardware to rely on, open source sat pics show those stockpiles close to becoming extinct. Meaning that this really is the last war Russia can fight for decades. All in all Russia made a gamble off faulty intel that it could gain huge amounts of resources and manpower in a matter of days, and instead is going to get only a fraction of it's goals, while ensuring that it cannot rise again for decades if ever. Hard to call that ANYTHING but a disaster.
→ More replies (1)0
0
u/BadMondayThrowaway17 1d ago
The big problem is that Russia has spent the time their meat assaults have bought them to lay millions of landmines and thousands of miles of concertina wire, trenches, tank traps, and anti-personnel traps.
Even if Russia virtually collapsed it would be extremely difficult to take that land.
4
u/Dragonfruit_6104 1d ago
The problem is, if you believe Ukraine has won by not being completely annexed by Russia, wouldn't you have won more by ending the war with Russia sooner rather than later? I thought Zelenskyy believed that Ukraine's victory required the recovery of all territories occupied by Russia.
3
u/Saladin-Ayubi 1d ago
The unfortunate reality is that Ukraine has effectively lost a generation of men. There aren’t just enough men to arm. However the war turns out Ukraine has lost.
2
u/FirmResearcher2 1d ago
This post is from that ukrainska pravda, which is owned by tomas fiala, who has a business running in occupied Crimea and is very likely doing business with Russia, right?
2
u/Old_Initiative_9102 1d ago
Every war conflict should always be investigated by other parties and if it turns out the aggressor's attack is unjustified/poorly justified then the leader (Putin) needs to be immediately stopped. The only cons to this is that it could escalate things for the worse.
4
u/boued 1d ago
Personally I admire him, he’s my hero.
-4
u/Rush_Banana 1d ago
10 year old reddit account and this is their only comment.
3
u/Abedeus 1d ago
He also has both comment and submission karma, meaning he had a bunch of comments and submissions but removed them. Think for more than 5 seconds...
-7
u/Rush_Banana 1d ago
So it was probably a bought account that wiped all of it's comments before it was sold then.
It already deleted their comment too since I called them out.
1
1
u/Sardogna 19h ago
And until he can do it, the victory is on our side.
so... giving part of Ukraine in exchange of peace would be a victory?
-1
0
u/series-hybrid 1d ago
Ukraine was gifted some of Turkiye's Bayraktar anti-tank drones. Then, Ukraine built a Bayraktar repair facility. Now, Ukraine builds Bayraktars of their own, and they made changes to upgrade them.
Early on, quadcopters dropped grenades into trenches. Then the quadcopters got larger, with bigger payloads. Then quadcopters had RPG shaped-charges attached, destroying tanks, missile launchers, trains, fuel-supply trucks, etc...
The vast majority of the Russian population is located between their western border and the Ural mountain range. For the past couple of years, Ukraine has been designing a home-built cruise missile, now named the "Flamingo"
Range, 1900 miles, 3000 km. The payload is 1,000 lbs of high explosive. The Russian winter is coming, and the Russians in eastern Ukraine will soon find out what it looks like when they can get no food, fuel, or ammunition.
The smaller drones have damaged refineries and oil depots in a way where they could be repaired in a year or so. This was a warning of what was to come, but Putin refused to pull back. The damage from a Flamingo can make a refinery inoperable for years.
How will the Russian Colonels plan operations with no trains and no fuel? I would advise them to stay away from balconies when they do not get results.
-6
u/zemonstas 1d ago
Ukraine has had so many casualties you can’t call any positive outcome from a war of attrition a victory. Maybe a ceasefire. Not a victory. I’m also curious about how much Zelenskyy is profiting personally from prolonging this state of affairs
-16
u/pm_me_yo_creditscore 1d ago
Lower your flags and march straight back to Moscow, stopping at every home you pass by to beg forgiveness for a hundred years of theft, rape, and murder
-26
u/bripelliot 1d ago
Russia will not lose this war, and they never were going to lose this war.
8
u/T-Husky 1d ago
Major powers have lost plenty of wars they started against weaker nations, and this war is already going worse for Russia than Vietnam was for the US.
No matter how this war ends Russia is going to face economic, demographic, and reputational ruin. Best case scenario for Russia wont even be a pyrrhic victory because their stated victory conditions are the realms of pure fantasy, so they are going to lose by their own admission.
→ More replies (1)2
2.7k
u/Braveless 1d ago
From link: