The most that the EU has done is sanctioning a dozen of individual extremist colonizers for their crimes on palestinians.
There were some talks of sanctions last september, but it’s doubtful that it would have led to anything with, e.g., Germany or Italy opposing it, among other european states.
Oh yeah, i know that people here already know that. Just one more double standard to the list.
You probably already know that Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran was overthrown by the west two years after nationalizing Iran’s oil in 1958, but did you know that the same thing happened a decade earlier for Rómulo Gallegos, 9 months after implementing a 50-50 share of Venezuela’s oil in 1948 ?
He wasn’t replaced by a western-backed bloodthirsty king, but by one of our many western-backed bloodthirsty dictator, Pérez Jiménez, who received the Legion of Merit in 1954 for its anti-communist activities.
Guatemala also had a similar experience when it nationalized territories from the United Fruit Company(, 1954), or when S.Allende nationalized copper in 1971, or Syria in 1949, Congo in 1960, … Because their ressources are ours.
They should increase the prices of the raw materials as OPEC did in 1973, unite together, and nationalize their ressources. They’ll be sanctioned/overthrown/attacked/invaded/…
Edit : I.d.k. how they managed to get such estimation, even if there wasn’t an internet blackout, but western estimations are that « at least 12.000, and possibly as many as 20.000 people have been killed. » (here)
Such obvious lie(, since there’s no way to know, that was the whole debate in Palestine,) is believed by everyone, of course. It’d still be less than what our sanctions killed.
Yeah, look at this ex-general, current member of the Congress, a classic lack of self-awareness, especially two weeks after what they did to Venezuela and are doing to Iran, and are threatening to do in Mexico/Colombia/Cuba/…, and the (parliamentary )coup they supported in Peru, etc. :
No doubt that if Ukraine was on Russia’s side, they would consider it a security threat just like they’re currently claiming for Russia, China, Iran, …
I think that Ukraine would be ready to rejoin the Russian federation in exchange for :
- a recovery of their territories(, even if they were given by Russia in the past) ;
- an autonomous status inside the federation(, it could be strong enough as long as there’s no risk of western-backed remilitarization directed against Russia) ;
- a serious heavyweight economic program with China’s help for its development(, i.d.k. what China would receive, but ukrainian poverty was a huge factor that turned them against their previous family/side, even if we(sterners) were clearly responsible for it, accusing their oligarchs isn’t going far enough) ;
- the recovery of Transnistria according to the will of its population.
It could be an alliance or confederation that would include a military fusion, there’s no need to go as far as formally including Ukraine in the russian federation(, or giving back immediately each territory without referendums, negotiations are more complex than a lemmy comment, i’m just exploring possibilities)
Of course, the west will complain, but nothing new at this point, they may forget a decade later, and historians will take into account the arguments presented in the russian speeches.
Anyway, we(sterners) won’t care about creating a world where everyone’s security would be ensured against ©overt influences. It’s not even discussed, much less researched. And if it’s not on our mind, it’s because hegemony is our goal, not living (united )in diversity. Hegemony, and hence we(sterners), should be opposed.
We may have many more problems(&qualities), but i currently don’t care in comparison.
This is a complete no-go for Russia but especially for the people living in those territories. They fought and shed blood to not be under Ukraine anymore. Even if a rump Ukraine joins the Russian Federation in some form, there is zero chance they are ever getting the Donbass or Crimea back. It is the overwhelming opinion in Russia that giving Crimea to Ukraine was a mistake. It is more likely that the rest of Ukraine breaks apart and joins Russia as individual oblasts than it is that it will ever again exist as a single entity with control over all the territory from Kiev to the Donbass, let alone Crimea. They would be lucky to come out of this still holding onto Odessa.
I think that Ukraine values these territories more than it values being able to contain&hamper Russia, but it could content itself with an immediate economic program and future territorial promises.
So, an option could be the implementation of a negotiated economic program, as well as referendums in its old territories for, e.g., 2030, and then again one ~last time in 2050.
In comparison, it’s my belief that Russia values a friendly/russia-aligned Ukraine more than it values keeping these territories for itself. It remains to be determined if such alignment of Ukraine could be compatible with its election of a government among multiple political parties, not sure that banning all western influence could be done, sufficient, or even desirable perhaps(, because of the retaliation against foreign medias in the west).
That’s why i initially thought of a relative control of Ukraine as an autonomous territory inside the russian federation, but perhaps that any agreement leaving Ukraine’s military in Russia’s hands would be enough.
The whole “security guarantees” that both sides are asking for is representative of the problem, since Ukraine will say that not being able to threaten Russia will threaten them.
So either Ukraine is proposed something that they desire more than their military/‘ability to threaten Russia’, and willingly agree to such negotiation, as said above. Or the strong takes what it can while the weak endures what it must.
The west obviously cares more about Ukraine’s ability to hinder the Russian federation than Ukraine’s economy or territory.
However, Russia will care about its security much more than we(sterners) care about bringing its downfall(, just like we(sterners) would care about our security more than Russia would care about bringing our downfall).
I don’t think that there is that much hate between north-western and south-eastern ukrainians(, obviously there is once you start killing each other), the latter mostly fought against n.a.t.o., anti-russians, the e.u., …, as well as against cultural/linguistic/political/socio-economical/… ukrainian laws, and an overall change of their historical path.
Perhaps would there be some irredeemable exception to a pro-russian reunification, such as eastern Galicia, which Poland would pay a lot to gain(, if the local population is given a choice through a referendum between independence or joining either side).
Territories are a weird thing, we’re ready to hurt everything in our path(, including erasing the local culture,) to gain what seems to be the most important possible thing a state could gain, yet won’t like extending it through an alliance of different ideologies.
It’s precisely because we lack experience throughout history in such alliance of different ideologies that it’d appear nonsensical to claim that if Ukraine joined (with )the russian federation, then it’d be (part of )the largest country on Earth.
I’d almost certainly learn more by talking with pro-n.a.t.o. redditors(, i.d.k. how long a single thread would take though, if i’m not censored before that), but let me know your thoughts if you ever feel inclined to.
What “Ukraine” - aka the current illegitimate regime in Kiev - values is of no importance to Russia.
Those territories are essential to Russia’s security. They’ve been burned one too many times now and in their view the only way to ensure what happened doesn’t happen again is to directly control that land.
If they were to give the territories back to a Russia-aligned Ukraine who’s to say Ukraine wouldn’t turn back into a hostile entity again at some point?
And i think you are seriously underestimating the animosity that the people in the Donbass have toward the Ukrainian state. They would view it as a betrayal if Russia were to force majority ethnic Russian regions back under Ukraine against their will for the sake of some “clever” geopolitical game of trading territory for allegiance. What the people living there want matters!
You have to come to terms with the fact that Ukraine as we knew it is permanently broken and it cannot be put back together again. Yes there will be investment by Russia into a Russia-aligned rump Ukraine, but the territories aren’t going back. They are enshrined in the Russian constitution.
Also i don’t see any reason why, if incorporation of the territories of Ukraine into the Russian Federation was what Russia wanted to do, it would need to allow an entity called “Ukraine” to exist at all.
There is no need for such a large federal subject that would inevitably end up reproducing Soviet era dynamics of local elite formation that would wield far too much power in the Federation compared to other federal subjects. At a minimum it would be split into at least three or four parts.
But i don’t think that they have such an intention at the moment anyway. I see no indication for it. Russia is not going to annex Ukraine any time soon regardless how the conflict ends. So this is all pointless fantasizing.
The best case scenario for Ukraine is if whatever is left of Ukraine becomes like a second Belarus. Even then it would still be much poorer and more dysfunctional for the foreseeable future.
You may not have seen the edition of my previous comment
What’s the difference with the west then ? Aren’t they supposed to be the civilized side while we’re barbarians crowning ourselves the policemen of the world after having attempted to colonize it(, and continuing to steal their raw materials, etc.) ?
Or perhaps that there’s no difference and they should just do as they want to since they’re the strongest.
Having a pro-russian Ukraine is essential, not having n.a.t.o. and c.i.a. bases(/ports/…) at its borders is essential, …
Whether these territories are pro-russian or russian doesn’t change much.
Yeah, i developed that point when editing my previous comment.
Especially here : « That’s why i initially thought of a relative control of Ukraine as an autonomous territory inside the russian federation, but perhaps that any agreement leaving Ukraine’s military in Russia’s hands would be enough. »
With the conclusion that « So either Ukraine is proposed something that they desire more than their military/‘ability to threaten Russia’, and willingly agree to such negotiation, as said above. Or the strong takes what it can while the weak endures what it must. »
Russia hasn’t decided on a complete invasion of Ukraine for some reason(, which can be imagined), and everything indicate, from the first weeks of the war and the years preceding it, that they would prefer a negotiation to the use of force.
Don’t you think that they still consider themselves ukrainian ?
I.m.o., they just don’t perceive Ukraine as pro-n.a.t.o., and consider themselves as the true ukrainians, while the other are fake newcomers that changed it after 1991, while painting the u.s.s.r. and Russia as an oppressive ruler instead of their brother.
Pro-e.u. ukrainians don’t have a problem with capitalism, n.a.t.o. interventionnism, nor the increasing grasp of the e.u. on the sovereignty of its member-states. They also consider themselves authentic by picturing ukrainians as having always struggle for independence, instead of belonging to the same Rus people, closer to Belarus and western Russia than to western Europe and eastern Russia.
What i think is that they would like to bring back the rest of Ukraine to their side.
The rest of your arguments seem to have been answered above :) ?
(Feels weird to argue with someone from my side, i should perhaps take my lemmy.world account again)
Edit post-answer :
To sum up all these words : i think that ukrainians would value their western shift less than an economic boom and/or their territories so, if we suppose that Russia is looking for a negotiated resolution, it could promise referendums and negotiated economic advantages in exchange for the definitive loss of the ukrainian military capacity.
If we take things from the ukrainian side : you’re proposed a possibility to get back your territories if you’re pro-russian, among other requirements needed to have the votes of these populations in the upcoming referendums ; you’re also promised, through negotiated explicit conditions, an economic growth demanded by your population.
In exchange, you just have to give up on your n.a.t.o. alliance.
I don’t see why they’d refuse.
I don’t think they’re buying that they’re on the side of freedom(, of speech, election, …,) against authoritarianism. Nor that they’d join the anti-imperialist internationalist struggle for a multipolar world, against hegemonic capitalist-owned nationalists.
Each ukrainian is different, but ideological battles of the good side against the bad one don’t seem like it’d weight in their considerations. So i don’t see why they’d refuse such proposal(, only seeing the economic promise of the e.u. based on Poland for their interest).
Yes, this was exactly the Russian reasoning prior to 2022. Which is why they launched the SMO the way they did, only with the intention to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table and not actually take territory.
That calculation changed when it became clear that the Kiev regime had no intention of negotiating, and instead, with the support of the West, opted to wage a total war against Russia.
The situation has fundamentally changed now and what was possible prior to 2022 is now no longer an option. Too much blood has been shed. The Russian people would see relinquishing what they fought and died for as a complete betrayal and would oust any Russian government that tried to do that.
What they prefer and what is realistically possible are two different things. As long as negotiation continues to be impossible (because the Kiev regime and its European backers refuse to engage seriously with Russia and instead demand Russia’s capitulation) Russia will secure its interests by force.
Ukraine had a chance to keep the entire Donbass with the Minsk agreements. They walked away from them and they permanently lost the DPR and LPR when Russia recognized their independence from Ukraine.
Then they had another chance in 2022 with the Istanbul negotiations to keep at least the rest of the Donbass, and they walked away from those negotiations too. Russia held referendums in the new oblasts, and they officially annexed them.
This is over and done with and there will be no repeat referendums there. You have to understand that the clock cannot be turned back. But there may be more referendums in other parts of Ukraine that Russia has not yet annexed if the conflict drags on and Ukraine continues to be intransigent.
No. Now most of them consider themselves Russian. And before 2014 but especially before 1991 that was not mutually exclusive with calling yourself Ukrainian. They were ethnically, culturally and linguistically Russian but geographically (and post-1991 passport-wise) Ukrainian.
That changed when the Banderites took over and redefined what it meant to be Ukrainian according to their ethno-nationalist conception.
And that is exactly why they are incompatible with eastern Ukraine, and why they won’t coexist under one state structure anymore.
My suggestion to you would be to read more Russian media and Russian commentary on the conflict to understand how they see it. You can’t impose your own outside lens on the conflict without taking into account what the people who are actually involved think.
I added an edit to my previous answer while you were writing yours, and if you’re angry/‘the one who downvoted my previous comment(, a few minutes after you answered)’, then chill out man, if you’re looking for opponents then go elsewhere than Lemmygrad where we’re all on the same side, don’t picture me as someone i’m not.
Yeah, they thought they could win(, or that they had to take the chance). Wouldn’t you agree that they seem to have changed their mind since the last year, being now more inclined towards a negotiated settlement that doesn’t come ?
I suppose that not, based on your comment. Would you say that they’re simply delusional ? I tried here to imagine what would be conditions such that both sides could agree to it, as pointless as it is.
Here’s the russian’s June 2024 demands b.t.w.
So, i think that Ukraine could accept them, by asking for these economic promises and later referendums in surplus, since it’s not forbidden to add their conditions to the russian ones.
I think that both sides could end up agreeing on these conditions. If you don’t then ok, i don’t see what i could add to what i said.
Even if it’s a 2050 referendum from these regions(, after Ukraine went back to support Russia, Belarus, and the side it held for pretty much its whole past) ?
If they still don’t want to in 2050, then Ukraine will have taken its chance.
Yeah(, the civil war kept raging though, even if Ukraine put anti-russian leaders in charge in these regions, they often had more than 95% of them voting for pro-russian political parties, not easy to overturn that), because they were interested in Crimea, and instead of cancelling their western shift they increased it, motivated by revenge instead of recognizing their wrongs.
Similarly, they lost Crimea due to previous pro-western decisions that endangered Russia(, making Crimea a n.a.t.o. port, overthrowing Yanukovich, anti-u.s.s.r. and anti-russia sentiments, opening themselves entirely to western companies and organizations, …) It was multiplied under Poroshenko, etc.
They perfectly knew how the west intended to use them against Russia, how we destroyed Yugoslavia and acted in the Chechnyan conflict, or used other russian neighbours against it, but despite knowing the consequences for Russia they went for it anyway.
They were pro-u.s.s.r. in the past, they can become pro-Rus again. As i said above, perhaps not for all of them though(, e.g. eastern Galicia).
And if you disagree and claim that Kiev, for example, will never rejoin its old side again, then we’ll both disagree, and so be it.
I don’t downvote comments that are arguing in good faith and i am not angry in the slightest, i don’t know what gave you that impression. We’re just having a friendly discussion which i am quite enjoying.
No, i see no indication of that. They still categorically refuse to agree to most of Russia’s core demands, and instead they make completely absurd demands of Russia, as if they were the ones winning on the battlefield and not the Russians.
They are either delusional or they are desperate to keep the money train going for as long as possible, because once the conflict stops their opportunities to fill their pockets with Western money will significantly dry up.
I think the current regime in Kiev is never going to accept those demands. And Russia is not going to accept anything less than those demands. If a different government were to come to power in Kiev then sure, they can negotiate a lot of economic benefits from Russia, so long as they accept those basic points. Referendums in the territories that already had them are probably still a no-go.
What point is there to holding a referendum in 2050? Why would the result be any different than in 2022? These regions are already overwhelmingly Russian and will only get more Russian as time goes on. The DPR and LPR already have autonomy within Russia. Why would they give that up to be subordinated to a government in Kiev again? I just don’t see the point and I don’t see any Russian government going for something like this. If there is any internal reorganization within Russia it will probably be by administrative decision.
No i don’t disagree with that. I think there is a good chance that sooner or later Ukraine will turn back toward Russia. It just makes the most sense geographically, economically and culturally for them. I still don’t see any world in which they get Donbass and Crimea back.
Oh ! Great then, thanks for saying that :) !
I must have misunderstood
I partially agree with you, Ukraine wasn’t aiming for a negotiated settlement in 2022 with its unreasonable demands that can only be asked of a defeated country, and they didn’t care about multiplying the proposals or intensifying the negotiations.
It’s just much less excessive nowadays, e.g. the 4th and 13th point aren’t uninteresting, but it’s still far from there, so Russia won’t accept.
Because they were opposed to an anti-russian shift, so could eventually want to reconcile with a pro-russian Ukraine, whether by nostalgia or more pragmatically to influence it from the inside.
I’m trying to see what would make Ukraine desire to give up its western shift, hence why i necessarily have to be looking for russian concessions.
It’d be easier(, but even more futile,) to just say that “there’s nothing to be done, let’s just wait until Russia invade the rest of Ukraine”, but i wanted to see if i/we could find what a negotiated resolution accepted by both sides would entail.
Promising such referendums could weight in the balance towards obtaining a ukrainian agreement, such promise could also be useful to maintain their desire of being pro-russian, since they’d want to become attractive again to their old territories. Russia, being the largest country on Earth, may agree to such potential loss if it’s worth it to them.
Apart from the referendums, a second thing that could weight in their decision to shift their allegiance would be money, but the e.u. promised them the same economic boom as Poland, a promise hard to compete against.
If they ever manage to outclass such economic promise though(, which remains doubtful), then i think that Ukraine’s shift may be assured.
Realistically, they’ll lose their territories and be demilitarized, not allowed in the n.a.t.o. But they may be in the e.u., and may conspire to wage another war while breaking their demilitarization promise(, just like they never intended to respect the Minsk agreements in the first place), i suppose that we’ll see.
Russia may invade the rest of Ukraine, i.d.k. why they haven’t yet, retreating from Kiev at the end of March and mostly defending their line afterwards instead of attacking.
It’s just my opinion, and w/e, it’s not that easy to find a win-win situation :/
deleted by creator